HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolution 2008-084 N.C.S. 05/19/2008Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S.
of the City of Petaluma, California
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA
MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT, ADOPTING A
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS AND
ADOPTING AN IMPLEMENTATION PLAN AND
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM IN SUPPORT OF
THE GENERAL PLAN 2025, PURSUANT TO
THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
WHEREAS, the Notice of Preparation of the Draft. Environmental Impact Report for the
City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 ("the Plan") was mailed to all responsible and affected
agencies on August 11, 2004, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.4 and California
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines Section 15082; and,
WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report ("Draft EIR") was prepared for the
Plan in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15000 et seq., and circulated for public review between September 12, 2006 and May 7,
2007, with a notice inviting comments on the Draft EIR given in compliance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15085; and,
WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Draft EIR to the public agencies which
have jurisdiction by law with respect to the project and to other interested persons and agencies
and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held public meetings and hearings on September
26, October 10 and 24, November 14 and 28, December 12, 2006; January 9 and 23, February 20
and 27, and, March 13 and 27, 2007 to hear testimony on the draft General Plan and Draft EIR;
and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held noticed informational meetings or hearings on the
recommendations of the Planning Commission as well as on related General Plan matters
brought to the Council's attention by the public, City staff and its own members on the following
dates: October 2 and 16, November 6 and 20, December 4 and 18, 2006; January 22, February 5,
12 and 26, March 5 and 19, April 16 and 23, and May 7 and 21, 2007; and,
WHEREAS, a Revised Draft EIR -Greenhouse Gas Emissions was prepared for the
Plan in accordance with Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq. and CEQA Guidelines
Section 15000 et seq., and circulated for public review between November 20, 2007 and January
7, 2008, with a notice inviting comments on the Revised Draft EIR given in compliance with
CEQA Guidelines Section 15085; and,
WHEREAS, the City distributed copies of the Revised Draft EIR to the public agencies
which have jurisdiction by law with respect to the Plan and to other interested persons and
agencies and sought the comments of such persons and agencies; and,
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 1
WHEREAS, noticed public meetings on the Revised Draft EIR were held by the
Planning Commission on November 27 and December 11, 2007 and by the City Council on
December 3, 2007 and January 7, 2008 at which the Planning Commission and City Council,
respectively, considered the Revised Draft EIR and accepted public testimony; and,
WHEREAS, written and oral comments to the Draft EIR and Revised Draft EIR have
been received and responses to those comments have been prepared in the form of a Final
Environmental Impact Report for the Project ("Final EIR"); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21092.5, the City provided
notice regarding the availability of the Final EIR and circulated the proposed responses to
comments to public agencies submitting comments on the Draft EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held noticed public meetings on March 4 and
March 11, 2007 at which time it consideredthe Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and,
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the EIR for
the Plan be certified; and,
WHEREAS, the City Council held noticed public meetings on March 17 and March 31,
2007, at which time it considered the Final EIR and accepted public testimony; and,
WHEREAS, on April 7, 2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-058 N.C.S.
certifying the EIR for the Plan and making CEQA findings required as to that certification; and,
WHEREAS, Section 21081(a) of the Public Resources Code requires the City Council to
make one or more findings with respect to each significant adverse environmental effect of the
Plan and to evaluate alternatives to the Plan; and,
WHEREAS, general findings and findings regarding each significant adverse
environmental effect of the Plan, Plan policies, programs and mitigation measures which reduce
each such effect are set forth in Exhibit A, Sections I - IV and VI attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(c)-(d) require an EIR for a general plan
to include information regarding significant irreversible changes and growth-inducing impacts of
the plan; and,
WHEREAS, findings regarding significant irreversible changes and growth-inducing
impacts of the Plan are set forth in Exhibit A, Section V, attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference; and,
WHEREAS, Section 21081(a)(3) of the Public Resources Code requires the City
Council to make one or more findings with respect to alternatives to the Plan studied in the EIR
if all significant effects of the Plan are not mitigated to insignificance; and,
WHEREAS, findings regarding alternatives to the Plan studied in the EIR are set forth in
Exhibit A, Section VII, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS, after all identification and inclusion of all feasible mitigation, certain Plan
impacts will remain significant and unavoidable, even after the application of all feasible Plan
policies, programs and mitigation measures to lessen those impacts, including (i) unacceptable
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 2
levels of service at six intersections within the city; (ii) noise from traffic at buildout; (iii)
cumulative noise from traffic at buildout and possible future rail and/or electric trolley service,
particularly at or near at-grade crossings; (iv) buildout population which could conflict the with
2005 Bay Area Ozone Strategy; and (v) an impact on greenhouse gas emissions and climate
change which as of the date of this action cannot be conclusively described as less than
significant because of regulatory and technological uncertainty; and,
WHEREAS, Public Resources Code Section 21081(b) requires that the City Council
find that specific economic, legal, social, technological or other considerations outweigh any
significant environmental effects of the Plan which cannot be fully mitigated; and,
WHEREAS, a Statement of Overriding Considerations consisting of the City's findings
and determination regarding the Plan's benefits as compared to its significant and unavoidable
effects is contained in Exhibit A, Section VIII, which is incorporated herein by reference; and,
WHEREAS, CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(d) requires the City to adopt a program
for reporting on the mitigation measures which have been incorporated into the Plan to lessen
environmental effects; and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to CEQA, an Implementation Plan and Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program has been prepared, as set forth. in Exhibit B, which is incorporated herein by
reference, to ensure that all General Plan policies, programs and mitigation measures which
serve to reduced environmental impacts of the Plan are fully implemented; and,
WHEREAS, it is intended that future projects which are consistent with the General Plan
2025 are expected to rely on the General Plan 2025 EIR and the findings contained herein to
satisfy certain CEQA requirements for evaluation of environmental effects of future projects to
the extent those effects have been studied in the General Plan 2025 EIR; and,
WHEREAS, the location of the documents or other material that constitute the record of
proceedings upon which the decision is based is the Department of General Plan Administration,
27 Howard St., Petaluma, CA 94952, c/o General Plan Administrator.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. Recitals. The above Recitals are true and correct and adopted as findings of the City
Council.
2. Findings of Fact Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"~
a. As required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, the City
Council adopts the Findings contained in Exhibit A, Sections I - IV and VI, attached hereto and
incorporated herein by reference.
b. As required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, the City
Council adopts the findings regarding Significant Irreversible Changes and Growth-Inducing
Impacts contained in Exhibit A, Section V, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
c. As required by CEQA and based on substantial evidence in the record, the City
Council adopts the findings regarding alternatives to the General Plan 2025 ("Plan") contained
in the Exhibit A, Section VII, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 3
3. Statement of Overriding Considerations. As required by CEQA and based on substantial
evidence in the record, the City Council adopts the Statement of Overriding Considerations
regarding significant and unavoidable effects of the Plan contained in Exhibit A, Section
VIII, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
4. Implementation Plan and Mitigation Reporting Prog~. The City Council hereby approves
and adopts the Implementation Plan and Mitigation Reporting Program set forth in Exhibit B
which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, to ensure that all Plan policies, programs,
and other portions of the Plan relied on in the findings to mitigate identified environmental
impacts of the Plan are fully implemented. Compliance with the Implementation Plan and
Mitigation Reporting Program shall be a condition of approval of any future projects which
rely on the General Plan 2025 and its Environmental Impact Report.
5. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately.
6. Notice of Determination. The City Clerk is directed to immediately file a Notice of
Determination pursuant to CEQA.
7. Severability. Ail portions of this Resolution are severable. Should any individual portion of
this Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent
jurisdiction, then the remaining Resolution portions shall be and continue in full force and
effect, except as to those Resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid. The City
Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution
and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof, irrespective
of the .fact that one or more section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase or other portion may
beheld invalid or unconstitutional.
Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City
REFERENCE: 1 hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the Ap • r ed to
Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 19`s day of May, 2008, / ~rm:
by the following vote:
City Att -ney
AYES: Barrett, Harris, Nau, O'Brien, Vice Mayor Rabbitt, Mayor Torliatt
NOES: None
ABSENT: Freitas
ABSTAIN: None
ATTEST: Gl. ~
Deputy City Clerk
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 4
EXI~IBIT `A'
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS, FACTS, AND
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS PURSUANT TO THE
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT
IN SUPPORT OF ADOPTION OF THE
CITY OF PETAI,UMA GENERAL PLAN 2025
Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code Section 21000
et seq. ("CEQA"), 14 California Code of Regulations, Section 15000 et seq. ("CEQA
Guidelines" or "Guidelines") and Sections 12.3.0 and 13.3.1 of the City of Petaluma
Environmental Review Guidelines., the City Council hereby makes the following findings in
support of adoption of the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 (the "Plan"). On April 7,
2008, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-058 N.C.S., certifying an Environmental
Impact Report ("EIR") for the Plan. The EIR provides the basis for these findings and is
incorporated herein by reference.
I. INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW
The EIR prepared by the City of Petaluma (the "City") for the Plan consists of a Draft EIR,
Revised Draft EIR and Final EIR and its supporting studies and documents contained in the
EIR Technical Appendices. The Plan is intended to replace the existing General Plan 1987-
2005, which was last updated in 2002 (Housing Element). The General -Plan goes beyond
land use policies by providing comprehensive policies for public services and infrastructure
to implement the vision of the community as expressed in the Plan.
The .Plan articulates a vision for Petaluma for the next 17 years (2008-2025) and will also
serve as the base document for future periodic review and updates. The Plan allows the City
to plan for future community needs based on projected land use patterns, population and job
growth. It will allow the City to meet the City's Guiding Principles, identified in the
Introduction and Overview Chapter of the Plan. The Plan provides the foundation for the
2009 Housing Element update.
California Government Code Section 65300 et. seq. requires cities to prepare a general plan
that establishes policies and standards for future development, housing affordability, and
resource protection for its entire planning area. By law, a general plan must be an integrated,
internally consistent statement of city policies. Section 65302 requires that the general plan
include the following seven elements: Land Use, Circulation, Housing, Conservation
("Natural Environment"), Open Space, Noise and Safety. The proposed Plan includes the
seven elements required by State law. It also includes four other optional elements that
Resolution No. 2008-.084 N.C.S. Page 5
address local concerns: Community Design, Character and Green Building; Historic
Preservation; Water Resources; and, Economic Health and Sustainability.
The land use framework of the .Plan is illustrated in the Petaluma Land Use Map, which is a
graphic representation of the themes and policies of the Plan. The Land Use, Growth
Management, and the Built Environment Element designates the location and extent of land
use categories. It designates the proposed general location, distribution, and extent of land
uses through buildout, or the timeframe of the Plan. The Land Use Map is to be used and
interpreted only in conjunction with the text and other figures contained in the Plan.
According to State law, the City can establish a planning area that consists of land within the
city and, "any land outside its boundaries which, in the planning agency's judgment, bears
relation to its planning". The planning area identified in the Plan ("Planning Referral Area")
is unchanged from the 1987 General Plan and covers the 113 square mile Petaluma River
watershed within Sonoma County. The 20-year Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), the Sphere
of Influence, and the City's municipal boundary are all contained within the Planning
Referral Area.
The Plan provides specific policy guidance for implementation of Plan goals and programs in
each of the Plan elements and establishes a basis for action within the Planning Referral Area
and for the City to coordinate with neighboring jurisdictions, Sonoma County, and regional
and state agencies, as necessary. The policies in each element of the Plan provide details to
guide program implementation. The General Plan Implementation Plan and Mitigation
Monitoring Program describes, in general terms, the responsibilities for implementation. It
also outlines specific implementation actions that will be initiated after adoption of the Plan.
The Implementation Program will be updated as often as deemed necessary to ensure it
reflects the City's implementation and strategic priorities.
The Environmental Impact Report addresses the potential environmental effects associated
with the Plan. The findings of fact and statement of overriding considerations (collectively,
the "Findings") set forth herein are adopted by the Petaluma City Council as its findings
required for Plan approval pursuant to CEQA, the CEQA Guidelines and the City of
Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines. The Findings provide the written analysis and
conclusions of the. Council regarding the Plan's environmental impacts, mitigation measures,
alternatives to the Project, and the overriding considerations. which, in the Council's view,
justify approval of the Plan despite a small number of environmental effects which cannot be
mitigated to a level of insignificance.
II. GENERAL FINDINGS
A. Procedural Background and Overview of EIR Process
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 6
The EIR is a program EIR that examines the potential effects on the environment resulting
from implementing designated land uses and policies in the Plan. The impact assessment
evaluates and identifies the effects which may occur within the Planning Referral Area and
cumulatively on a broader regional basis from Plan implementation. As a programmatic
document, this EIR does not assess every site-specific impact of possible future development.
Future projects proceeding under the Plan will be subject to individual, site-specific
environmental review, at the level required by CEQA and State or local law.
Pursuant to CEQA, and the City of Petaluma Environmental Review Guidelines, the City
determined an EIR would be required for the Plan. The City circulated an Initial Study and
Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of an EIR for the Plan on August 11, 2004. Public meetings
were held beginning in 2001 to .solicit public input on the scope of the EIR and the content
of the Initial Study. A Draft EIR was completed in September, 2006 and a Notice of
Availability was circulated on September 12, 2006. Public comments were taken through
May 7, 2007.
Subsequent to the conclusion of the. public review process on the Draft EIR, direction was
given by the City Council to prepare a Revised Draft EIR on the subject of greenhouse. gas
emissions and climate change (collectively, "GHG"). A Revised Draft EIR was prepared and a
Notice of Availability was circulated on November 20, 2007. Public comments were taken
through January 7, 2008.
Noticed public meetings to consider the Plan and the Draft EIR were held before the
Planning Commission on September 26, October 10 and 24, November 14 and. 28, December
12, 2006; January 9 and 23, February 20 and 27, and, March 13 and 27, 2007. The City
Council held noticed informational meetings or hearings on the recommendations of the
Planning Commission as well as on related General Plan matters brought to the Council's
attention by the public, City staff and its own members on the following dates: October 2
and 16, November 6 and 20, December 4 and 18, 2006; January 22, February 5, 12 and 26,
March 5 and 19, April 16 and 23, and May 7 and 21, 2007. Noticed public hearings on the
Revised General Plan text and Revised Draft EIR were held by the Planning Commission on
November 27 and December 11, 2007 and by the City Council on December 3, 2007 and
January 7, 2008.
Following the close of the public review periods, in accordance with the. recommendations of
the Planning Commission, the City Council authorized the preparation of a Final EIR to
provide responses to.the public comments on the Draft EIR and the Revised .Draft EIR. The
City prepared written responses to the comments received during the comment periods and
included these responses in a three-volume report entitled General Plan 2025 Final
Environmental Impact Report. This Final EIR was completed and circulated to public
agency commentors on February 15, 2008. A public notice, by means of publication in a
local newspaper, mailing or emailing to all citizens on the Interested Citizen's List, was
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 7
provided to invite public participation in the review of the Final EIR. On March 4 and
March 11, 2008, the Planning Commission held noticed public meetings on the .Final EIR
and unanimously recommended certification. On March 17 and March 31, 2008, the City
Council held noticed public meetings and received. public comment on the adequacy of the
Final EIR. The City Council was provided with all comment letters and emails received
regarding the Final EIR, a summary of oral comments on the EIR from Planning Commission
proceedings, Errata .for the Final EIR, and other relevant materials. After review and
deliberation, at the. conclusion of the public meeting on March 31, 2008, the City Council
directed City staff to prepare a resolution certifying the EIR. On April 7, 2008 the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 2008-058 N.C.S. certifying the EIR and making the required
CEQA certification.
On April 1 and April 8, 2008, after duly noticed public hearings, the Planning Commission
reviewed the Draft General Plan 2025 and recommended to the City Council the approval
and adoption of the Plan with minor modifications. The City Council held Public Hearings
on April 7, April 14, and April 21, 2008 to allow public input on the final Plan. After
concluding its review and deliberation, the City Council directed the preparation of
legislation to approve the Plan and make necessary Findings.
The public review periods have greatly exceeded the requirements of CEQA. The EIR has
been completed in compliance with the procedural requirements of CEQA, the CEQA
Guidelines and the City of Petaluma Environmental Guidelines.
B. Record of Proceedings
1. For the purposes of CEQA and these Findings, the Record of Proceedings upon which
the Findings and determinations related to the Plan are based includes the following,
at a minimum:
a. The NOP, dated August 11, 2004, .and all other public notices issued by the
City in conjunction with the Plan;
b. The Draft EIR for the Plan, including the Existing Conditions, Opportunities
and Challenges Report, the Land Use and Mobility Alternatives Report, and all
appendices and technical studies for the Plan included or referenced in the
Draft EIR (General Plan Technical Appendices, Volumes 1-6, Appendices A to
G); Revised Draft EIR, Greenhouse Gas Emissions (General Plan Technical
Appendices, Volume 5.A, Appendix G.1); and Erratum # 1 to Revised Draft
EIR, dated November 26, 2007;
c. Notice of Availability, published September 12, 2006, which provided notice
that the Draft EIR had been completed and was available for public review and
comment;
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 8
d. Notice of Availability -Revised Draft EIR, published November 20, 2007,
which provided notice that the Revised Draft EIR had been completed and
was available for public review and comment;
e. All comments submitted by agencies or members of the public during the
comment. periods on the Draft EIR and Revised Draft EIR;
f. All comments and correspondence submitted to the City with respect to the
Plan;
g. The Final EIR for the Plan, including comments on environmental issues
received on the Draft EIR and Revised Draft EIR, responses to those
comments, and technical appendices;
h. Documents cited or referenced in the Draft, Revised Draft, and Final EIRs;
i. All findings, ordinances and resolutions adopted by the Council in connection
with the Plan and/or its EIR and all documents cited or referred to therein;
j. All reports, studies, memoranda (including internal memoranda not protected
by the attorney client and/or attorney work product privileges and/or the
deliberative process exception to the California Public Records Act), maps,
staff reports, or other planning documents relating to the Plan prepared by the
City, consultants to the City, or responsible or trustee agencies with respect to
the City's compliance with the requirements of CEQA and with respect to the
City's action on the Plan;
k. Any minutes and/or verbatim transcripts of all information sessions, public
meetings, and public hearings held by the City in connection with the Plan;
1. Any documentary or other evidence submitted to the City at such information
sessions, public meetings and public hearings;
m. Any documents expressly cited in these CEQA findings, in addition to those
cited above; and
n. Any other materials required for the record of proceedings by Public
Resources Code Section 21167.6, subdivision (e).
2. The official custodian of the record is the City Clerk, City of Petaluma, or designee.
Such documents and other materials are generally located at 11 English Street,
Petaluma, CA 94952.
3. The City Council has relied on all of the documents listed above in reaching its
decision on the Plan, even if not every document was formally presented to the City
as part of the city files generated in connection with the Plan. Without exception,
any documents set forth above and not found in the Plan, fall into one of two
categories. Many of them reflect prior planning or legislative decisions of which the
Council was aware in approving the Plan. (see City of Santa Cruz v. Local Agency
Formation Commission (1978) 76 Ca1.App.3d 381, 391-392; Dominey v. Department
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 9
of Personnel Administration (1988) 205 Ca1.App.3d 729, 738, fn.6.). Other documents
included the expert advice provided to City Staff or consultants, who then provided
advice to the Council. For that reason, such documents form part of the underlying
factual basis for the Council's decision relating to the Plan. (see Public Resources
Code Section 21167.6 (e)(10); Browning-Ferris Industries v. City Council of City of
San Jose (1986) 181 Ca1.App.3d 852, 866; Stanislaus Audubon Society, Inc, v. County
of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Ca1.App.4~'' 144, 153, 155.)
C. Consideration and Certification of the EIR
In accordance with CEQA, the City Council certified in Resolution 2008-058 N.C.S., adopted
April 7, 2008, that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA, the City Council
had independently reviewed the record. and the EIR prior to certifying the EIR, and the EIR
represents the independent judgment and analysis of the City Council. By making these
Findings, the City Council further confirms, ratifies, and adopts the EIR certification findings
and conclusions of the EIR as supplemented and modified by these Findings, which also
represent the independent judgment and analysis of the City and the City Council. The City
Council recognizes that the EIR may contain clerical errors. The City Council reviewed the
entirety of the EIR and bases its determination on the substantive information it contains.
The City Council certifies that the EIR is adequate to support the approval of the Plan, each
of its components, any variant of the Plan described in the EIR and any minor modifications
to the Plan or variants of the Plan described in the EIR.
D. Absence of Significant New Information
The City Council recognizes that the Final EIR incorporates information obtained and
produced after the Draft EIR and the Revised Draft EIR were completed, and that the Final
EIR contains additions, clarifications, and modifications. The City Council has reviewed and
considered the Final EIR and all information contained in the Final EIR. The Final EIR does
not add significant new information to the Draft EIR or the Revised Draft EIR that would
require recirculation of the EIR under CEQA. The new information added to the EIR does
not involve a new significant environmental impact, a substantial increase in the severity of
an environmental impact, or a feasible mitigation measure or alternative considerably
different from others previously analyzed that the City has declined to adopt and that would
clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of the Plan. No information indicates
that the Draft EIR or the Revised, Draft EIR were inadequate or conclusory or that the public
was deprived of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the Draft EIR and the
Revised Draft EIR. Thus, recirculation of the EIR is not required. The City Council finds
that the changes and modifications made to the EIR after the Draft EIR was circulated for
public review and comment do not individually or collectively constitute significant new
information within the meaning of Public Resources Code Section 21092.1 or CEQA
Guidelines Section 15088.5.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 10
E. General Plan Programs and Policies as Mitigation.
Because the CEQA project at issue is the adoption of a long range planning document, most
of the measures which will mitigate environmental impacts of the Plan are contained in the
Plan's goals, policies and programs. This is consistent with direction from the City Council
at early stages in the Plan process to develop a general plan which self-mitigates its impacts,
to the full extent feasible. The policies and programs which .serve as mitigation are discussed
throughout these Findings and identified in the Implementation Plan and Mitigation
Monitoring Program which is attached as Exhibit B ("IP/MMP") and adopted concurrently
with the Findings. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15097, subsection (a), because the
project at issue is the adoption of a general plan or other plan-level document, the IP/MMP
applies to policies and other portions of the Plan that serve as mitigation measures.
References to "mitigation" and/or "mitigatio.n measures" throughout these Findings include
Plan policies and programs which are relied on to reduce environmental impacts.
F. Severability
If any term, provision, or portion of these Findings or the application of these Findings to a
particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, void or
unenforceable, the remaining provisions of these Findings, or their application to other
actions related to the Plan, shall continue in full force and effect unless amended or modified
by the City.
III. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF THE PROJECT: FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT AND UNAVOIDABLE
IMPACTS
As .set forth in Section IV hereof, almost all potentially significant impacts of the Plan will be
reduced to less-than-significant levels by the Plan Policies which form the mitigation
measures recommended in these Findings. The City Council finds that a small number of
impacts cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance even with the incorporation of all
mitigation in Plan Policies, and there are no feasible alternatives to the Plan which would
mitigate or avoid these significant environmental impacts and still achieve Plan objectives.
These impacts are considered significant and unavoidable even if their impacts have been
substantially lessened.
The significant impacts of the Plan that cannot be mitigated to levels of insignificance are (i)
deteriorated levels of service at six intersections within the City (Transportation Impact 3.2-
1); (ii) increased noise from traffic along certain roadways (Transportation Impact 3.9-1); (iii)
the cumulative noise impact of possible future rail and trolley service combined with
increased noise from traffic (Cumulative Impact, Draft EIR, p. 4-5); (iv) an air quality impact
resulting from buildout population numbers that conflict with the Bay Area 2005 Ozone
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 1
Strategy (Impact 3.10-1); and (v) a possible air quality impact resulting from the city's
inability to determine, based on current regulatory and technical uncertainty, whether or
not implementation of the Plan will create a cumulatively considerable incremental
contribution to adverse global climate change.
A. Transportation
Impact 3.2-1 Increased motor vehicle traffic would result in unacceptable level of
service (LOS) at study intersections.
Traffic at six intersections will operate at LOS E or worse at buildout, thus creating a
significant impact at these intersections, under the revised LOS criteria called for by the
Plan:
® McDowell Boulevard North /Corona Road
o Lakeville Street / Caulfield Lane
® Lakeville Street / East D Street
® Petaluma Boulevard South / D Street
® Sonoma Mountain Parkway /Ely Boulevard South /East Washington Street
® McDowell Boulevard North /Rainier Avenue
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which affect and/or substantially reduce this impact:
Policy 5-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D and E. Provide for the development of a multi-
modal interconnected system to greatly expand upon the opportunity of travel on
multiple routes by multiple modes.
Policy 5-P-2, Programs A, B, C, D and E. Ensure timely funding and completion of
the identified mobility system to meet the needs of the community through buildout.
Policy 5-P-3, Programs A and B. Provide for flexibility and innovation in the design,
construction and maintenance of the mobility infrastructure.
Policy 5-P-4. Ensures off-site improvements may be required of new development to
complete appropriate links to the existing multi-modal infrastructure.
Policy 5-P-5. Draws in full multi-modal components into the evaluation of potential
mobility impacts.
Policy 5-P-8, Programs A and B. Identifies quality of life and community character as
priorities in the task of designing the multi-modal components of the community's
mobility infrastructure.
Policy 5-P-10, Program A. Sets the Level of Service D (LOS D) or better for motor
vehicles while recognizing a lower LOS may be acceptable if improvements are found
to conflict with Guiding Principles.
Policy 5-P-11, Program A. Sets forth the major components to the mobility
infrastructure and requires new development to assist in their funding.
Policy 5-P-13, Program G. Not counted on for the mitigation of impacts, this
program is part of the voluntary Travel Demand Management and Parking Program.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 12
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the
Plan which will lessen, but not avoid, the significant effect identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable
Explanation: There are no feasible mitigation measures identified that would reduce
the impacts to the six study intersections to less than significant other than measures that
would conflict with other Plan Guiding Principles. Feasibility of mitigation in this ease
includes consideration of whether a possible mitigation measure meets overall project
objectives. Here, those project objectives are contained in the Plan's Guiding Principles
set out at Section i-3 of the Plan. The competing interests of building all roadway
systems to meet peak travel period demands and preserving the overall community
character of the city has been resolved in Policy 5-P-10, Program A, which notes that a
level of service lower than LOS D for motor vehicles may be deemed acceptable by the
City in instances where potential vehicular traffic mitigations such as adding additional
lanes or modifying signal timing, would conflict with the following Guiding Principles:
Guiding Principle #2, preserve and enhance Petaluma's historic character; Guiding
Principle #6, provide a range of attractive and viable transportation alternatives, such as
bicycle, pedestrian, rail and transit; and Guiding Principle #7, enhance downtown by
preserving its historic character, increasing accessibility and ensuring a broad range of
business and activities and increasing residential activities. It has been determined that
installing additional lanes or expanding vehicle capacity at these locations would conflict
with these Guiding Principles. The deliberative process led the community and decision
makers to recognize that the non-vehicular modes of travel would be adversely impacted
if roadway improvements were undertaken to weigh more heavily toward a priority of
vehicle demands. Building roadways to meet peak hour LOS demands were balanced
with the overall community desire to retain a roadway system that meets a more
balanced 24-hour volume demand.
B. Traffiic Related Noise
Impact 3.9-1 At buildout implementation of the proposed General Plan would
generate increased local traffic volumes in the Planning Area that
would result in a substantial increase to existing exterior noise levels
that are currently above the City standards.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 10-P-3, Programs A, B, D, E, F and G. Provides for the elimination or
minimization of existing noise problems by minimizing the increase of noise levels in
the future.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the
Plan which will lessen, but not avoid, the significant effect identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable
Explanation: Under the various elements of Policy 10-P-3, the city will locate and
design transportation facilities to minimize noise effects on adjacent areas. It will
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S: Page 13
determine acceptable uses and installation requirements in noise-impacted areas using
Land Use Compatibility Standards in General Plan Figure 10-2. It will require a
professional acoustical engineer to provide technical analysis design mitigation measures
for development proposed in areas with noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, discourage
location of new noise-sensitive uses in such areas, and when permitted, require
mitigation to achieve interior noise levels not in excess of 45 cB CNEL. The city will
establish noise-emission standards for city vehicles and continue to require noise control
or mitigation for construction related noise, including from construction vehicles. While
sound walls are discouraged, Plan Program 10-P-3-F permits them as necessary,
particularly along Highway 101 and the NWPRS rail corridor. While. the .identified
Policy and Programs will reduce traffic related noise, the effect will remain significant
and. unavoidable at certain roadway segments..
C. Cumulative Noise from Future Rail Operations
Draft EIR, p.4-5 In addition to increased noise from traffic through
buildout, cumulative development analysis includes noise from proposed
resumption of freight and passenger rail operations and possible resumption of
intra-city trolley service, which would increase noise impacts.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 10-P-3, Programs A, B, D, E, F and G. Provides for the elimination or
minimization of existing noise problems by minimizing the increase of noise levels in the
future.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the
Plan which will lessen, but not reduce, the significant effect identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable
Explanation: Noise impacts from potential future passenger and freight traffic along the
SMART rail corridor have been identified in a draft EIR for the SMART project, which
identified severe noise impacts according to Federal Transportation Authority standards
for 22 .residents within Petaluma because of .horn operations for at-grade crossings. Rail
service could generate noise levels of 66 dBA (CNEL) within 100 feet of the railroad
tracks, assuming eight train movements per day, three engines, 100 railcars and average
speed of 40 miles per hour. Trolley operations would generate noise levels below those
from U.S. Highway 101 and the NWP/SMART rail services. The Policy 10-P-3 and its
Programs cited above would reduce cumulative noise from traffic coupled with future
rail service to the same extent they would reduce traffic noise from buildout as described
under Impact 3.9.1 above. It is not presently possible to determine with any degree of
certainty if and when passenger or freight rail service, or electric trolley service might
commence. Regulatory authority over the rail system is within the jurisdiction of
agencies other than the City of Petaluma. There is no feasible .mitigation which would
reduce this cumulative impact to a less than significant level.
Resolution No. ?008-084 N.C.S. Page 14
D. Air Quality
Impact 3.10-1 Buildout of the proposed General Plan would result in population
levels that could conflict with the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-7, Program A reduces vehicle related air pollution by promoting amulti-
modal transportation system.
Policy 4-P-8 supports the development of alternative fuel stations.
Policy 4-P-9 requires a percentage of parking spaces in parking lots or garages to
provide vehicle charging facilities.
Policy 4-P-10 requires charging and alternative fuel facilities at new and remodeled
gas stations.
Policy 4-P-11 calls for the promotion of ride-sharing and car-sharing programs.
Policy 4-P-12 regulates new and expanded drive-thru facilities which increase idling
vehicles.
Policy 4-P-13 requires roundabouts, where feasible, as alternative to signalization.
Policy 4-P-14 integrates Intelligent Transportation Technologies into the City
transportation system.
Policy 4-P-15, Programs A, B, C and D reduces emissions from stationary point
sources and incorporates measures into new development practices to reduce air
pollution.
Policy 4-P-17 identifies the use of buffer zones and locating new land uses, which
may be stationary sources of air pollution away from sensitive receptor land uses and
areas.
Policy 4-P-23 provides for the staffing of a Green Program Manager.
Policy 4-P-24 requires compliance with AB 32 and its governing regulations.
Policy 4-P-25 connects additional adopted State standards designed to reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the City's jurisdictional authority.
Policy 4-P-26 calls for the implementation of measures contained in the. municipal
Climate Action Plan.
Policy 4-P-27 calls for the preparation of a Community Climate Action Plan to
achieve the goals of Resolution 2005-118 (25% below 1990 levels by 2015).
Policy 4-P-28 calls for the preparation of a Feasibility Report on the possible forming
of a Community Choice Aggregation for the purchase of bulk electric loads.
Policy 4-P-29 requires training City staff on new technology and improving energy
efficiency in public facilities.
Policy 4-P-31, Programs A, B, C, D and E provides for community outreach ,and
education on "green tips" and green business practices.
Policy 4-P-32 calls for the development and implementation of a municipal
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program.
Policy 4-P-33 suggests developing aCity-sponsored program to assist home-owners in
purchasing renewable energy systems.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Yage 15
Policy 5-P-13, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F and G provides for a voluntary Travel
Demand Management Program.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been .required in or incorporated into the
Plan which will lessen, but not avoid the significant effect identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable
Explanation: The Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy reviews the region's progress over
the years in reducing ozone levels, describes current conditions, and charts a course for
future actions to further reduce ozone levels in the Bay Area. The control strategy is a
central element of the Bay Area 2005 Ozone Strategy. The control strategy outlines a set
of control measures to further reduce ozone precursor emissions in order to reduce ozone
levels in the Bay Area and to reduce transport of pollution to downwind regions. The
2005 Ozone Strategy utilizes ABAG's population projections for 2025, which were 64,200
at the time of the preparation of the Draft Strategy Report. The ABAG population
projection used for the Report is below that of the existing 1987-2005 General Plan. The
General Plan 2025 proposes a slight increase over the 1987-2005 General Plan, for the
most part due to the policies encouraging infill, smart growth, transit-oriented
development patterns, and clustering higher densities in the central areas of the
community. This impact remains Significant and Unavoidable, despite the numerous
mitigations in the Plan policies identified above to reduce the creation of vehicle
generated pollutants.
E. Air Quality
Impact 3.10-6 Implementation of the proposed General Plan may result in a
cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to the significant
cumulative impact of Global Climate Change.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-7, Program A .reduces vehicle related air pollution by enforcing multi-
modal transportation strategies.
Policy 4-P-8 supports alternative fuel station development.
Policy 4-P-9 requires a percentage of parking spaces in parking lots or garages to
provide vehicle charging facilities.
Policy 4-P-10 requires charging and alternative fuel facilities at new and remodeled
gas stations.
Policy 4-P-11 calls for the promotion of ride-sharing and car-sharing programs.
Policy 4-P-12 regulates new and expanded drive-thru facilities which increase idling
vehicles.
Policy 4-P-13 requires roundabouts, where feasible, as alternative to signalization.
Policy 4-P-14 integrates Intelligent Transportation Technologies into the City
transportation system.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 16
Policy 4-P-15, Programs A, B, C and D reduces emissions from stationary point
sources and incorporates measures into new development practices to reduce air
pollution.
Policy 4-P-17 identifies the use of buffer zones and locating new land uses, which
may be stationary sources of air pollution away from sensitive receptor land uses and
areas.
Policy 5-P-13, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F and G provides for a voluntary Travel
Demand Management Program.
Policy 4-P-23 provides for the staffing of a Green Program Manager..
Policy 4-P-24 requires compliance with AB 32 and its governing regulations.
Policy 4-P-25 connects additional adopted State standards designed to reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the City's jurisdictional authority.
Policy 4-P-26 calls for the implementation of measures contained in the municipal
Climate Action Plan.
Policy 4-P-27 calls for the preparation of a Community Climate Action Plan to
achieve the goals of Resolution 2005-118 (reduction of municipal and
communitywide emissions).
Policy 4-P-28 calls for the preparation of a Feasibility Report on the possible forming
of a Community Choice Aggregation for the purchase of bulk electric loads.
Policy 4-P-29 requires training City staff on new technology and improving energy
efficiency in public facilities.
Policy 4-P-30 requires the monitoring of new technology and innovative design for
applicability to future development.
Policy 4-P-31, Programs A, B, C, D and E provides for community outreach and
education on "green tips" and green business practices.
Policy 4-P-32 calls for the development and implementation of a municipal
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program.
Policy 4-P-33 suggests developing aCity-sponsored program to assist home-owners in
purchasing renewable energy systems.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in or incorporated into the
Plan which will lessen, but not avoid -the significant effect identified in -the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Significant and Unavoidable
Explanation: The City prepared a Revised Draft EIR which quantified GHG emissions,
identified the most recently available GHG strategies from a variety of sources, including
the California Air Resources Board, and incorporated an extensive list of GHG reduction
measures into the Plan, to supplement existing Policies regarding resource conservation,
energy efficiency, smart land use and multi-modal transportation. The City is preparing a
Climate Action Program. It has identified extremely aggressive municipal and
community goals for GHG reductions through its Resolution 2005-118. Evaluation and
mitigation of the effects of climate change by local agencies is currently in a state of
regulatory and technological uncertainty. The effects of national, State and regional GHG
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 17
reduction measures in Petaluma and the effect of local GHG reduction measures in
Petaluma on the larger regional, State and global environment are uncertain and difficult
to quantify. Therefore, the EIR concludes that it cannot be determined to a reasonable
degree of certainty that buildout under the Plan will not result in a cumulatively
considerable incremental contribution to the significant cumulative impact of global
climate change. Therefore, this impact remains significant and unavoidable.
F. The City Council further finds that each mitigation measure relied on in these Findings
to reduce an identified impact is feasible. Each relevant identified mitigation measure
will be required of, incorporated into or otherwise complied with by any development
which proceeds under this Plan.
G. The City Council further finds that for each identified implementation or mitigation
measure that requires the cooperation or action of another agency, adoption and/or
implementation of each such mitigation measure is within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of the public agency identified, and the measures can and should be adopted
and/or implemented by said agency.
IV. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
WHICH ARE AVOIDED OR MITIGATED TO A LESS-THAN-SIGNIFICANT
LEVEL.
The EIR found the following impacts of the Plan to be potentially significant. The EIR
identifies Plan Policies. and mitigation measures to address those impacts, as described below.
The City Council further finds that each mitigation measure relied on in these Findings to
reduce an identified impact is feasible. Each relevant identified mitigation measure will be
required of, incorporated into or otherwise complied with by any development which
proceeds under this Plan. The City Council further finds that for each identified
implementation or mitigation measure that requires the cooperation or action of another
agency, adoption and/or implementation of each such mitigation measure is within the
responsibility and jurisdiction of the public agency identified, and the measures can and
should be adopted and/or implemented by said agency.
A. Land Use
1. Impact 3.1-1 The proposed General Plan may result in the conversion of
some farmland to non-agricultural uses.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 1-P-1 promotes land use density and intensity ranges to serve the community's
needs.
Policy 1-P-2 promotes infill development.
Policy 1-P-17 retains ridgelines and prominent hillsides as open space and encourages
transfer of density in sensitive portions of the community.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 18
Policy 1-P-24 supports rural, agricultural and/or open space land use designations
beyond the Urban Growth Boundary.
Policy 1-P-25 supports maintenance and expansion of the existing Community
Separators.
Finding: Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the Plan
which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The Plan retains 77 acres of farmland acreage within the urbanized area
of the City. The continued designation of these lands as Agriculture will ensure their
availability for agricultural growing or grazing activities. None of the land proposed for
non-agricultural use under the. Plan is designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland
or Farmland of Statewide Importance. The Plan does not rezone land subject to a
Williamson Act contract. The conversion of land designated as Farmland of Local
Importance is not considered significant under CEQA. The continuation of the Urban
.Separator and maintenance of the UGB will maintain permanent open space around the
city and Policies 1-P-23 and 1-P-24 require the city to cooperate with neighboring
jurisdictions to maintain land in unincorporated areas outside the UGB as rural,
agricultural and/or open space.
B. Transportation
2. Impact 3.2-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could cause
increased demand for transit service.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Mitigation measures to expand the bus transit system, coordinate schedules more
effectively to improve availability, and enhance existing transit facilities are folded into
policies and programs, as follows:
Policy 5-P-42 supports transit oriented development around the existing train station
and other transit corridors and provides setting aside areas for bus stop enhancements.
Policy 5-P-43 calls for the expanded use of the park and ride facility at the
Fairgrounds.
Policy 5-P-44 calls for collaboration with Santa Rosa Junior College to enhance transit
access and service.
Policy 5-P-45 requires coordination of transit services among the various agencies and
service providers.
Policy 5-P-46 identifies the possibility of consolidation of transit services.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Explanation: Plan Policies and programs provide for the expansion of the City's
transit system, provision of parking facilities for the recently completed central
bus/transit station, and the coordination of transit schedules with community and
educational activities. Traffic impact fees required by the Plan will include costs of
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page l9
providing the additional transit facilities required to serve new development under the
Plan.
3. Impact 3.2-3 Provision of secure and safe bicycle parking may be inadequate.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Mitigation for this impact ensures new development will provide necessary support
facilities as a condition of the development review process by the inclusion of the
following policy and program:
Policy 5-P-31 A requires the provision of secure, protected parking facilities at
locations such as multi-family housing and shopping employment centers.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The Plan identifies specific bicycle improvements and requires the
adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan, which will be adopted concurrently with
the Plan. Bicycle Traffic impact fees required by the Plan will include the costs of
providing additional bicycle parking facilities which are required to serve new
development permitted by the Plan.
4. Impact 3.2-4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in
increased demand for motor vehicle parking.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 5-P-13, Programs F and G provide for a voluntary Travel Demand
Management Program.
Policy 5-P-14 encourages the maximization of shared parking and expansion of
parking facilities in Central Petaluma.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: Plan Policy 5-P-14 requires the city to maximize shared parking
opportunities and support construction of additional parking structure(s) in central
Petaluma, thus providing more parking as development proceeds. Under portions of
Policy 5-P-13, (encourage implementation of Transportation Demand Management
programs in the private sector), the city will work with Santa Rosa Junior College on
parking management and reducing the need for additional parking spaces at that facility.
The city will also encourage preferential parking in selected areas for designated carpools,
motorcycles and bicycles, with the side effect of reducing the number of vehicles
requiring parking spaces.
C. Parks
5. Impact 3.3-1 Future development may result in a decrease of parkland per
1,000 residents.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 20
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact: Site-
specific park locations, development standards, and parkland acquisition and
development fee increases were identified to ensure future development does not degrade
the existing quality or ratio of parkland to population.
Policy 6-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, j and K sets forth the justification and
process for developing additional parkland and recreational facilities to maintain
current standards.
Policy 6-P-2, Programs A and B requires the provision of a comprehensive and
integrated network of parks and open space through the identification of missing
links and prioritizing their acquisition.
Policy 6-P-3 identifies the priority of connecting city parks with other public
facilities.
Policy 6-P-4 articulates that proposed parks are parcel-specific and requires
dedication through the development review process.
Policy 6-P-5 provides for the possibility of requiring recreation facilities, beyond
those identified in the Plan, in response to specific project impacts.
Policy 6-P-6, Program A sets the community park standard at 5 acres of 1,000
residents (3 acres of community park and 2 acres of neighborhood park), and an open
space/urban separator standard of 10 acres per 1,000 population.
Policy 6-P-7, Programs A and B sets forth the procedure for the dedication of
neighborhood parks and establishes a mechanism for a Transfer of Development
Rights Program.
Policy 6-P-9, Program A calls for the promotion and coordination of joint use of
school facilities to maximize public access to recreational facilities, including shared
renovation and maintenance.
Policy 6-P-10 continues the cooperation of using school open space, .playfields and
facilities to allow public use.
Policy 6-P-13, Programs A, B and C recognizes the value and need. to maintain and
improve the City's aquatics program including the preparation of an Aquatic Plan.
Policy 6-P-14 encourages cooperation in the development of Tolay Lake as an open
space asset.
Policy 6-P-15, Program A identifies a work priority to cooperate with regional park
and open space agencies to develop common goals for open space acquisition and
development beyond the Urban Growth Boundary, including maintaining Lafferty
Ranch as City-owned open space.
Policy 6-P-16 provides for the recognition of park land priorities in the potential UGB
expansion areas.
Policy 6-P-17, Program A and B recognizes City assets as a matter of civic pride,
priority and safety through public acknowledgements and encouraging local
participating in meeting .maintenance needs/costs.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 21
Policy 6-P-18 requires the provision and maintenance of publicly owned trails where
designated.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: Policy 6-P-6 requires the city to revise the city's park dedication/in-lieu
fee requirements to maintain a citywide park standard of 5.0 acres of park land per 1,000
population. Pursuant to Policy 6-P-7, the city's park land development impact. fee will be
revised to require a fee sufficient to develop 5.0 acres of park land per 1,000 population of
new development, and to broaden the fee to apply to non-residential development on a
basis that is proportionate with the degree of use of park facilities by that development.
The other programs listed recognize the importance of park land and recreation to the
city and identify specific mechanisms to further the city's park goals.
D. Schools
6. Impact 3.4-1 New development may generate additional elementary and
secondary school enrollment within all the school districts
serving Petaluma.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Although no new elementary or secondary school facilities are anticipated and school
attendance trends indicate a declining enrollment, the slight increase of residential
population calls for mitigation for this impact to be folded into the following policies and
programs:
Policy 7-P-12, Program A identifies the need to ensure availability of appropriate sites
for all school needs through a comprehensive, long-range assessment.
Policy 7-P-16 identifies the need to include new school sites if UGB expansion should
occur.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: Consultation with local school districts suggests a projected decline in
total K-12 public school enrollment within the UGB. By 2025, projected public
elementary school enrollment would use 85% of the total existing 2004-2005 capacity of
schools located within and near the city boundaries. A significant decline of 15% is
projected for public secondary school enrollment. One elementary district within the
city is projected to exceed capacity by a small amount toward the end of the Plan
buildout, but capacity enhancements or arrangements with other local school districts
experiencing declining enrollments could absorb this 175 student shortfall. Nevertheless,
the Plan commits. the city to work with the Petaluma school districts to assess school sites
and capacities in a long term comprehensive plan and identify and set aside land if
needed for future schools sites, should expansion of the UGB occur.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 22
E. Police and Fire. Services
7. Impact 3.4-2 New development under the proposed General Plan requires
police and fire protection that exceeds current staffing and
facilities.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Extensive work was undertaken to quantify existing staffing and facility standards.
Mitigation for this impact to ensure future development does not adversely impact these
standards has been folded into the following policies and programs:
Policy 7-P-17, Program A identifies the ratio of one fire suppression personnel per
1.,000 population.
Policy 7-P-18, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H and I provides programs to ensure Fire
Department facilities, equipment and personnel are adequate to maintain quality of
service demands.
Policy 7-P-19, Programs A and B address the need to maintain the emergency four
minute travel time for a total of 6-minute response time.
Policy 7-P-21, Programs A, B and C presents the Ambulance Enterprise System needs.
Policy 7-P-25, Programs A, B and C addresses avoiding a catastrophic fire event in the
downtown with specific programs.
Policy 7-P-31, Program A identifies the ratio of 1.3 police officers per 1,000
population to meeting increased service calls.
Policy 7-P-32 calls for the use of the City's computer Aided Dispatch System.
Policy 7-P-33 identifies the need for along-term strategy for funding education and
crime prevention programs.
Policy 7-P-34 identifies the need to expand or replace the existing Police Station.
Policy 7-P-35 calls for the incorporation of the Development Code Urban Design
Standards for crime prevention in new development.
Policy 7-P-36, Programs A and B provides programs to ensure Police Department
personnel, facilities and equipment meet the long-terms needs of the community.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: Policy 7-P-17, Program A identifies the ratio of one fire suppression
personnel per 1,000 population. Policy 7-P-31, Program A identifies the ratio of 1.3
police officers per 1,000 population. Policy 7-P-34 identifies replacement of the existing
police station and calls for funding of the portion attributable to new development it
through public facilities impact fees, which are being updated to conform to this Policy.
Public facilities impact fees are also being updated to provide for a relocated and
expanded fire station to serve community needs through buildout. Various programs
recommend improved crime reduction and prevention strategies, improved emergency
response times using Computer Aided Dispatch and the city's records management
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 23
system. Policy 7-P-35 requires incorporating Development Code Urban Design Standards
for crime prevention into new development, to the. extent feasible and appropriate.
8. Impact 3.4-3 New development under the proposed General Plan requires
emergency preparedness that may exceed the capabilities of the
existing programs.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 7-P-22, Programs A, B, C, D and E calls for ensuring emergency response
equipment and personnel are adequate to follow the adopted Emergency Operations
Plan.
Policy 7-P-23, Programs A and B identifies the utilization of the Emergency
Operations Center (EOC) to respond to community emergencies and supports a low
power FM radio station with links to the Emergency Alert system.
Policy 7-P-24, Program A requires the maintenance of critical facilities to ensure
their operations during emergencies.
Policy 7-P-28, Program A calls for the expansion of the Fire Department to allow
response to river-related emergencies.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The City has, in past practices, prioritized emergency preparedness but
not within the context of the General Plan. The programs incorporated into the Plan
recognize this need and place priorities on maintaining that preparedness. In addition,
policies relating to the enhancement and increased public access to the Petaluma River
identify a need to provide public safety services in response to river-related emergencies,
which are now included in the Plan.
9. Impact 3.4-4 Development near the Urban Growth Boundary may increase
risk from wild land fires due to the proximity of development to
open areas of grassland or chaparral.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Mitigation for this impact has been folded into the following policy and programs:
Policy 7-P-27 Programs A, B, C and D. Reduces the impacts of wildland fires with
programs to address fire risk, weed abatement, restriction of the sale and use of
fireworks.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The Policies and programs identified will reduce the presence of
flammable weeds on the open areas under the city's control, lessening fire risk. The
program and standards identified in Program A of Policy 7-P-27 will supplement the
city's existing fire code which places fire safety conditions on any new development.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 24
With or without the Plan, development in any area identified as high fire hazard will also
be subject to heightened vegetation standards required by State law.
F. Water Supply and Demand/Wastewater
10. Impact 3.5-1 New development that would result from the proposed General
Plan may increase water demand that may exceed available
supply.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 8-P-1, Programs A and B calls for the use of comprehensive long-term water
supply plans and the need to ensure that imported water is reliable, cost-effective, and
of high quality.
Policy 8-P-3 calls for cooperation with Sonoma County Water Agency on the South
Transmission System Project.
Policy 8-P-4, Programs A, B, C and D identifies the need and means to routinely
assess its ability and need to meet local demand for potable water.
Policy 8-P-5, Programs A, B and C calls for the expansion of the use of recycled water
to offset potable demand and the expansion of water conservation programs.
Policy 8-P-6, Program A calls for the utilization of the Water Demand and Supply
Analysis Report (June 2006) for monitoring, assessing and improving the municipal
water supply.
Policy 8-P-7 limits the provision of potable water connections beyond the City's
Urban Growth Boundary.
Policy 8-P-9 provides tertiary treated water to offset potable demand for irrigation of
parks, golf courses and other landscape areas.
Policy 8-P-10, Programs A, B and C provides recycled water and the flexible use of
that resource to offset potable demand at time of development review. .
Policy 8-P-11 continues the. option of working with agricultural users of recycled
water.
Policy 8-P-12 allows the City's discretion to determine the appropriate water supply
to meet customer water needs.
Policy 8-P-13, Program A allows conversion of potable water users to recycled water
as infrastructure and water supply becomes available and allows City discretion
during public and private development review.
Policy 8-P-18, Programs A, B, C, D, E and F calls for the reduction of potable demand
through Conservation, utilizing Best Management Practices, implementation of the
City's Water Drought Contingency Plan as needed, revising local ordinance to
encourage or require use of water-efficiency landscaping and elimination of wasteful
uses of water.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in-the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 25
Explanation: The city undertook an extensive work effort in connection with the
Plan to identify sustainable means of providing potable water to serve future buildout
under the Plan, as contained in the Water Supply and Demand Analysis, EIR Technical
Appendices, Vol. 2, Appendix C ("WSDA").
The .Plan requires the city to adopt a Water Conservation Plan, provide tertiary recycled
water to offset potable water demand and allows the city to require use of recycled water
through conditioning future projects through the entitlement process for new
development. Water supply for development through Plan buildout will come almost
entirely from recycled water offset and water conservation. Effectiveness of the adopted
Water Conservation Plan may well eliminate even the small amount of possible water
supply from city wells that was identified as a minimal addition to supply that could be
potentially needed in 2024-2025.
11. Impact 3.5-2 New development may result in the need to expand new
wastewater treatment facilities, the construction of which may
cause significant environmental effects.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 8-P-9, Programs A and B provides for the option to provide tertiary recycled
water to offset potable demand and
Policy 8-P-10, Programs A, B and C provides recycled water and the flexible use of
that resource to offset potable demand at time of development review.
Policy 8-P-11 continues the option of working with agricultural users of recycled
water.
Policy 8-P-12 allows the City's discretion to determine the appropriate water supply
to meet customer water needs.
Policy 8-P-13, Program A allows conversion of potable water users to recycled water
as infrastructure and water supply becomes available and allows City discretion
during public and private development review.
Policy 8-P-14 calls for the operation of the water recycling facility in compliance
with State and Federal permit requirements.
Policy 8-P-15, Program A requires the maintenance of the water recycling facility
capacity to keep pace with City's growth.
Policy 8-P-16, Programs A, B, C, D and E calls for compliance with Statewide General
Waste Discharge Requirements, carrying out routine maintenance, and providing for
replacement on a 100-year life cycle.
Policy 8-P-18, Programs A, B, C, D, E and F calls for the reduction of potable demand
through Conservation, utilizing Best Management Practices, implementation of the
City's Water Drought Contingency Plan as needed, revising local ordinance to
encourage or require use. of water-efficiency landscaping and elimination of wasteful
uses of water.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 26
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: Policies 8-P-9 through 8-P-13 are part of the City's program to add
water supply through offset of potable water with recycled water. However, the recycled
water program also helps the city's wastewater treatment facility meet applicable
regulatory requirements for discharge by treating water to secondary and tertiary levels
which are safe and appropriate for their respective uses, thereby reducing the amount of
treated water discharged .into the Petaluma River. Policies 8-P-14 through 8-P-16 ensure
that the city's wastewater facilities operate in conformance with all regulatory
requirements. The Ellis Creek facility was the subject of its own EIR which adequately
evaluated all impacts of that facility, which was completed prior to approval of that
project. Recycled water infrastructure improvements related to Policies 8-P-9 through 8-
P-13 were identified at a programmatic level in the EIR (see the WSDA, EIR Appendix C,
pp. 3-2 - 3-11 and Exhibit I), and will be the subject of a further project-level EIR
presently in preparation.
G. Energy
12. Impact 3.5-3 The proposed General ..Plan could result in wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy by residential,
commercial, industrial, or public uses.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 2-P-119 requires the incorporation of green building principles and practices
into all facilities that are constructed, owned, managed or financed by the City.
Policy 2-P-121 calls for the evaluation of the success of the voluntary green program
and the development and implementation of a mandatory program for new
residential, commercial and municipal development and remodels.
Policy 4-P-18, Programs A, B and C calls for the adoption of local energy standards
resulting in less energy than California Title 24.
Policy 4-P-19, Programs A, B, D and D encourage use of renewable or nontraditional
sources of energy, implementation of a green building code, encouraging local
business energy audits and considering the feasibility of requiring a percentage of new
development to meet 50% of energy needs from fossil fuel alternatives.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The Plan raises the level of expectation that the City will exceed State
adopted standards at reducing energy use by new development. Through policies and
programs new development and remodels will be expected to incorporate energy
reducing technology.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 27
13. Impact 3.5-4 The proposed General Plan could require the need for
additional energy facilities, the construction of which could
have significant environmental impacts.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
This impact is considered less than significant, even without mitigation. However,
measures to reduce energy consumption are contained in Policy 4-P-19, Programs A, B,' C
and D which encourage use of renewable or nontraditional sources of energy,
implementation of a green building code, encouraging local business energy audits and
considering the feasibility of requiring a percentage of new development to meet 50% of
energy needs from fossil fuel alternatives.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: This impact is considered less than significant, even without mitigation.
The Plan will add approximately 15,600 new residents and increased commercial and
industrial uses of energy. The city obtains its natural gas and electricity from PG&E,
which will provide natural gas and energy as customers request. their services. It is not
possible to determine the site or nature of any future construction of natural gas and
electricity infrastructure by PG&E, and projects within the city, if any, will be subject to
environmental review at the time any such project is proposed. Because the increase in
demand from the Plan is not expected to substantially increase demand beyond available
supply and any future projects will be analyzed in subsequent environmental reviews,
this impact is not considered significant. However, measures to reduce energy
consumption are contained in the Plan, as exemplified by Policy 4-P-19. These measures
will reduce the anticipated increase in city demand for energy.
14. Impact 3.5-5 The proposed General Plan could cause a substantial increase in
transportation energy consumption due to the projected
increases in trips associated with future population and
employment growth.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-7, Program A reduces vehicle related air pollution by enforcing multi-modal
transportation strategies.
Policy 4-P-8 supports alternative fuel station development.
Policy 4-P-9 requires a percentage of parking spaces in parking lots or garages to
provide vehicle charging facilities.
Policy 4-P-10 requires charging and alternative fuel facilities at new and remodeled
gas stations.
Policy 4-P-11 calls for the promotion of ride-sharing and car-sharing programs.
Policy 4-P-12 regulates new and expanded drive-thru facilities which increase idling
vehicles.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 28
Policy 4-P-13 requires roundabouts, where feasible, as alternative to signalization.
Policy 4-P-14 integrates Intelligent Transportation Technologies into the City
transportation system.
Policy 4-P-15, Programs A, B, C and D reduces emissions from stationary point
sources and incorporates measures into new development practices to reduce air
pollution.
Policy 4-P-17 identifies the use of buffer zones and locating new land uses, which
may be stationary sources of air pollution away from sensitive receptor land uses and
areas.
Policy 4-P-23 provides for the staffing of a Green Program Manager.
Policy 4-P-24 requires compliance with AB 32 and its governing regulations.
Policy 4-P-26 calls for the implementation of measures contained in the municipal
Climate Action Plan.
Policy 4-P-27 calls for the preparation of a Community Climate Action Plan to
achieve the goals of Resolution 2005-118 (25% below 19901evels by 2015).
Policy 4-P-28 calls for the preparation of a Feasibility Report on the possible forming
of a Community Choice Aggregation for the purchase of bulk electric loads.
Policy 4-P-29 requires training City staff on new technology and improving energy
efficiency in public facilities.
Policy 4-P-30 requires the monitoring of new technology and innovative design for
applicability to future development.
Policy 4-P-31, Programs A, B, C, D and E provides for community outreach and
education on "green tips" and green business practices.
Policy 4-P-32 calls for the development and implementation of a municipal
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program.
Policy 5-P-13, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F and G provides for a voluntary Travel
Demand Management Program.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The General Plan is based on a community emphasis on moving the
City away from a vehicle oriented means of transportation to encouraging amulti-modal
transportation system that meets of the needs of mobility while emphasizing
opportunities to travel without the means of a car. Land use policies allow easy walking
or biking to essential services; mobility policies and programs call for expansion of trails,
bikeways, transit systems, and physical links between various land uses; expanded public
services such as parks are planned to reduce cross-town vehicle trips for recreational
activities; and the thread of sustainability and the desire to reduce greenhouse gas.
emissions throughout the Plan identify the desire to reduce the importance and
reliability on vehicles for transportation as the community allows limited development
through infill within the existing Urban Growth Boundary.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S: Page 29
H. Solid Waste
15. Impact 3.5-6 New development may result in increased demand for solid
waste disposal at the County landfill.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-21, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H calls for reduction of solid waste
through reuse and/or recycling, expanding food waste composting, reducing public
facility solid. waste volumes and supporting resource recovery facilities by the. City's
waste hauler.
Policy 4-P-22, Programs A, B, C and D address components of future waste contract
negotiations such as resource recovery, recycling and waste stream diversion goals,
hazardous waste collection and disposal of City waste at a site with the least potential
for environmental impacts.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: Solid waste disposal capacity is not expected to exceed landfill capacity
before buildout. The city is and will continue to be compliant with Integrated Waste
Management Act goals for solid waste diversion. A variety of efforts pursuant to 4P-Z 1
and 4-P-22 include requiring new development and public facilities to have sufficient
recycling areas, education and information outreach, and emphasis on purchasing
recycled materials for city use. The city's efforts to reduce solid waste and increase
recycling comply with the Sonoma Countywide Integrated Waste Management Plan.
I. Water
16. Impact 3.6-1 Buildout of the General Plan 2025 may degrade water quality.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 8-P-38, Programs A, B and C addresses the requirement to have development
projects comply with NPDES permit requirements, maintaining the City's Storm
Water Management Plan to retain the California RWQCB storm water discharge
permit and calls for the implementation of a funding mechanism to insure a source of
funds for surface drainage system maintenance and improvement needs.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The reduction of pollutant load in surface water runoff is addressed
primarily by the recognition of the need to adhere to the Phase 2 National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The Plan also emphasizes creation of the
Petaluma River Corridor with increased setbacks and enhancement of those setbacks to
reduce urban pollutant loads from reaching the River.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 30
17. Impact 3.6-2 Buildout of the General Plan 2025 may increase depletion of
groundwater supply or substantially interfere with groundwater
recharge.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 8-P-1, Programs A and B calls for the use of comprehensive long-term water
supply plans and the need to ensure that imported water is reliable, cost-effective, and
of high quality.
Policy 8-P-2
Policy 8-P-3 calls for cooperation with Sonoma County Water Agency on the South
Transmission System Project.
Policy 8-P-4, Programs A, B, C and D identifies the need and. means to routinely
assess its ability and. need to meet local demand for potable water.
Policy 8-P-5, Programs A, B and C calls for the expansion of the use of recycled water
to offset potable demand and the expansion of water conservation programs.
Policy 8-P-6, Program A calls for the utilization of the Water Demand and Supply
Analysis Report (June 2006) for monitoring, assessing and improving the municipal.
water supply.
Policy 8-P-7 limits the provision of potable water connections beyond the City's
Urban Growth Boundary.
Policy 8-P-9 provides tertiary treated water to offset potable demand for irrigation of
parks, golf courses and other landscape areas.
Policy 8-P-10, Programs A, B and C provides recycled water and the flexible use of
that resource to offset potable demand at time of development review.
Policy 8-P-11 continues the option of working with agricultural users of recycled
water.
Policy 8-P-12 allows the City's discretion to determine the appropriate water supply
to meet customer water needs.
Policy 8-P-13, Program A allows conversion of potable water users to recycled water
as infrastructure and water supply becomes available and allows City discretion
during public and private development review.
Policy 8-P-18, Programs A, B, C, D, E and F calls for the reduction of potable demand
through Conservation, utilizing Best Management Practices, implementation of the
City's Water Drought Contingency Plan as needed, revising .local ordinance to
encourage or require use of water-efficiency landscaping and elimination of wasteful
uses of water.
Policy 8-P-20, Programs A and B protects groundwater recharge areas and stream
sides from urban encroachment by controlling construction of impervious surfaces.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 31
Explanation: Policy 8-P-20 requires the city to use discretionary permits to control
construction of impervious surfaces in groundwater recharge areas. The city can also use
its groundwater feasibility study (EIR, Appendix F-2) to work with regional agencies
such as the Sonoma County Water Agency to identify and prioritize aquifer recharge
areas during the site. selection process for future regional detention basins. The water
supply impact discussion set out above for Impact 3.5.1 is incorporated herein by
reference. Water supply policies in the Plan will substitute recycled water and water
conservation for additional groundwater use, and thereby avoid any depletion of
groundwater from new consumption to serve Plan buildout.
18. Impact 3.6-3 Buildout of the proposed General Plan may increase drainage
flows as a result of impervious surfaces, thereby altering the
existing drainage patterns.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 8-P-28, Programs A and B identifies the Petaluma River Corridor (PRC) and
identifies requirements for dedication and enhancement of the PRC.
Policy 8-P-29, Programs A, B, C, D and E calls for the creation of a flood management
plan, or plan amendment to the existing Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage
plan (SCWA, June 2003) to implement regional surface water solutions, requires
interim. development standards, identifies the .need to utilize zero net fill policies in
'the unincorporated area, and the City's intent to participate in regional components
of surface water drainage system improvements.
Policy 8-P-30, Programs A, B and C calls for the protection of the Petaluma River
Corridor (PRC) to ensure potential development implements planned corridor
improvements, and maintains that an appropriate fee will be paid by developers to the
City's dynamic computer-based surface water management model, XP-SWMM.
Policy 8-P-31, Programs A and B requires that development within areas subject to
periodic surface water inundation preserve and enhance those areas to preserve
historic channel capacity.
Policy 8-P-32, Programs A and B provides the City's policy of intent and interest for
those areas outside the City, subject to periodic inundation, to preserve and expand
existing storm water capacity storage areas and to establish a zero net fill policy
similar to that within the City limits.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The identified programs provide a Petaluma River Corridor land use
overlay with specific authority to impose development restrictions and creation of a flood
terracing system to reduce existing and future potential for localized flooding. The.
programs will provide for increased setbacks from the River, reduction of development
potential in flood-prone areas, and the ability to work with proponents of new
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 32
development to implement regional solutions to existing and future flood occurrences.
Policy 8-P-30 prohibits development within a 200' setback of those portions of the
Petaluma River within the UGB until the city-SCWA flood management study is done;
and thereafter, require evaluation of the cumulative effects of any new development
proposal on the regional surface water system. Policy 8-P-31 and 8-P-32 emphasize the
preservation of historic and existing flood channel and detention basin/area containment.
Policy 8-P-33 require zero-net-fill and when appropriate zero-net-runoff as conditions of
new development.
19. Impact 3.6-4 New development may overload storm drain system capacity or
require expansion of existing or construction of new facilities.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 8-P-33, Program A calls for the continued implementation of the mandatory
zero-net fill.
Policy 8-P-35, Program A, D, E and F calls for the protection of private and public
properties by insuring routine maintenance of surface and piped water drainage
conveyance systems; promotes public stewardship of the riparian corridors, supports
continued dredging of the Petaluma River including the creation of a funding
mechanism for continued dredging activity.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The extensive studies undertaken as part of the Plan work effort on the
characteristics of flood water flows support the programs contained in the Plan for the
reduction of existing flood patterns, thereby reducing the frequency and depth of flood
waters, and the potential for continued property damage. The Plan expands existing
development standards to further reduce potential impacts by future development and
ensures that long-term improvements are undertaken to further reduce existing flood
occurrences.
20. Impact 3.6-5 Buildout of the proposed General Plan 2025 may expose people
or structures, to risk of existing flooding hazards or may place
structures which could impede or redirect flood flows.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 8-P-28, Programs A .and B identifies the Petaluma River Corridor (PRC) and
identifies requirements for dedication and enhancement of the PRC.
Policy 8-P-29, Programs A, B, C, D and E calls for the creation of a flood management
plan, or plan amendment to the existing Petaluma River Watershed Master Drainage
plan (SCWA, June 2003) to implement regional surface water solutions, requires
interim development standards, identifies the need to utilize zero net fill policies in
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 33
the unincorporated area, and the City's intent to participate in regional components
of surface water drainage system improvements.
Policy 8-P-30, Programs A, B and C calls for the protection of the Petaluma River
Corridor (PRC) to ensure potential development implements planned corridor
improvements, and maintains that an appropriate fee will be paid by developers to the
City's dynamic computer-based surface water management model, XP-SWMM.
Policy 8-P-31, Programs A and B requires that development within areas subject to
periodic surface water inundation preserve and enhance those areas to preserve
historic channel capacity.
Policy 8-P-32, Programs A and B provides the City's policy of intent and interest for
those areas outside the City, subject to periodic inundation, to preserve and expand
existing storm water capacity storage areas and to establish a zero net fill policy
similar to that within the City limits.
Policy 8-P-37, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H provides restrictions to
development within portions of properties subject to water depths exceeding one foot
in depth during a 100-year storm event, identifies the tools to be used to define
regional flood reduction improvements, calls for remapping of the regulatory FEMA
mapping of the Floodway and Floodplain, and identifies constraints to construction
within the regulatory Floodplain after remapping occurs to minimize potential future
flood hazards to residential land uses.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: As set forth in the EIR Technical Appendices F-2, F-4, E-1 and E-2, the
City has extensively studied and analyzed the existing flood conditions and patterns of
the Petaluma Watershed. The identified programs provide a Petaluma River Corridor
land use overlay with specific authority to impose development restrictions and creation
of a flood terracing system to reduce existing localized flooding. The programs will
provide for increased setbacks from the River, reduction of development potential in
flood-prone areas, and the ability to work with proponents of new development to
implement regional solutions to existing and future flood occurrences. Policy 8-P-30
prohibits development within a 200' setback of those portions of the Petaluma River
within the UGB until the city-SCWA flood management study is done, and thereafter
requires evaluation of the cumulative effects of any new development proposal on the
regional surface water system. Policy 8-P-31 and 8-P-32 emphasize the preservation of
historic and existing flood channel and detention basin/area containment. Policy 8-P-33
require zero-net-fill and when appropriate zero-net-runoff as conditions of new
development. Policy 8-P-37-reduces flooding hazard by prohibiting entitlement of
inhabited structures on property determined to have a water depth exceeding one foot in
a 100 year flood, per General Plan Figure 8.2, unless project-specific design or
improvements reduce the 100 year flood depth to less than one foot. Policy 8-P-37 also
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 34
identifies tools to be used to define regional flood improvements and relates conditioning
of future development to updated FEMA mapping.
21. Impact 3.6-6 Buildout of the General Plan 2025 may require or result in the
construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion
of existing facilities the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 8-P-30, Programs A, B and C calls for the protection of the Petaluma River
Corridor (PRC) to ensure potential development implements planned corridor
improvements, and maintains that an appropriate fee will be paid by developers to the
City's dynamic computer-based surface water management model, XP-SWMM.
Policy 8-P-35, Program N expands the source of data for the City's surface water
model by identifying additional stream level gage locations.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The identified Policies have been incorporated .into the Plan to ensure
that all future surface water drainage facilities work in concert with the natural
characteristics of the River to allow the peak storm flows to be carried in the most natural
conveyance system possible. The policies also provide for environmental enhancements
to the River. The city 'has implemented and will continue to use acontinually-updated
computer-based surface water management model (XP-SWMM) to evaluate the need and
type of future storm water drainage improvements which will be required of future
development.
J. Seismicity and Soils
22. Impact 3.7-1 Buildout of the proposed General Plan would expose people or
structures to strong seismic groundshaking or seismic-related
ground failure.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 10-P-1 Program A, D and E requires geotechnical studies prior to
development, calls for the routine adoption of the California Building Code and
encourages continuation of seismic retrofit assistance.
Policy 10-P-2 A calls for the adoption and maintenance of a Hazard Mitigation Plan
to minimize the risks associated with seismic activity or slope instability.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: Implementation of the programs identified will ensure that all new
development is required to prepare geotechnical studies where indicated and use the
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 35
most current engineering, design, and construction standards for seismic protection.
Under Policy 10-P-2, the city will continue to explore programs that will assist residents
with retrofitting for seismic safety.
23. Impact 3.7-3 Buildout of the proposed General Plan would result in soil
erosion.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 10-P-1 Program B and C provides policies on protection of slopes greater than
30 percent, requires the .regulation of grading and development on hillsides, and calls
for developing hillside regulations.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: Where development is proposed on sites with slopes greater than 30%,
Policy 10-P-1, Program B requires clustering of all development outside the 30% slope
area, and preferably on land with a slope of 15% or less. Policy 10-P-2 requires the
regulation of the grading and development of hillside areas by a new ,set of hillside
regulations, which have been prepared and will be adopted concurrently with the
adoption of the Plan. These regulations will use such measures as limiting cut slopes to
3:1, absent justification from an engineering geologist, .requiring significant revegetation
and ensuring structural integrity of sites, which will avoid erosion and subsidence. All
new development will be required to use the most current engineering and soil erosion
protection measures.
K. Special Status Species
24. Impact 3.8-1 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in
substantial adverse effects on special status fish species or their
habitat.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M outlines a
comprehensive river management strategy for the Petaluma River that includes
setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank planting and retention of
trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policy 4-P-2, Program A provides the order of priority for protection: avoidance, on-
site mitigation, and off-site mitigation.
Policy 4-P-3, Programs A and B require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and
sensitive habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future
development applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at
the time of project-level environmental review.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 36
Policy 4-P-4, Programs A and B continues the City's support for rural land use
designations and protection of riparian corridors and critical biological habitat outside
the city limits.
Policy 4-P-5 requires the city to cooperate with Sonoma County to support wetlands
mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in unincorporated areas outside the UGB.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: Proposed development immediately adjacent to the Petaluma River or
Adobe Creek could potentially significant impacts to Steelhead, Sacramento Splittail or
other special status fish if construction activities occurred in or adjacent. to stream
channels. Compliance with State and federal regulations, such as the Clean Water Act,
Sections 404 and 401,. regulations of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board
and California Department of Fish and Game. Policy 4-P-2 and 3 requires site specific
biological resources assessments of all future development, and appropriate mitigation
measures imposed in project-level environmental review. Policy 4-P-1 outlines a
comprehensive river management strategy for the Petaluma River that includes setbacks,
buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank planting and retention of trees to
reduce ambient water temperature and other measures. Policies 4-P-4 and 4-P-5 require
the city to cooperate with Sonoma County to protect riparian corridors and support
wetland mitigation in unincorporated areas outside the UGB, because of the wider
region's effect on the Petaluma River watershed.
25. Impact 3.8-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in
substantial adverse effects on the salt marsh harvest mouse or its
habitat.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M outline a
comprehensive river management strategy for the Petaluma River that includes
setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank planting and retention of
trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policy 4-P-2, Program A provides the order of priority for protection: avoidance, on-
site mitigation, and off-site mitigation.
Policy 4-P-3, Programs A and B require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and
sensitive habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future
development applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at
the time of project-level environmental review.
Policy 4-P-4, Programs A and B continues the City's support for rural land use
designations and protection of riparian corridors and critical biological habitat outside
the city limits.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 37
Policy 4-P-5 requires the city to cooperate with Sonoma County to support wetlands
mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in unincorporated areas outside the UGB.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan .Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: 4-P-1 outlines a comprehensive river management strategy for the
Petaluma River that includes setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank
planting and retention of trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policies 4-P-2 and Policy 4-P-3 require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and sensitive
habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future development
applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at the time of
project-level environmental review. Policies 4-P-4 and 4-P-5 require the city to
cooperate with Sonoma County to protect riparian corridors and critical biological
habitats, and. support wetlands mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in
unincorporated areas outside the UGB. By addressing the Petaluma River Watershed's
riparian ecosystem with consistent policies, the city and county can implement
protection and enhancement strategies for development review and routine maintenance
activities.
26. Impact 3.8-4 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in
substantial adverse effects on special status bat species or their
habitat.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this_impact:
Policy 4-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M outlines a
comprehensive river management strategy for the Petaluma River that includes
setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank planting. and retention of
trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policy 4-P-2, Program A provides the order of priority for protection: avoidance, on-
site mitigation, and off-site mitigation.
Policy 4-P-3, Programs A and B require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and
sensitive habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future
development applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at
the time of project-level environmental review.
Policy 4-P-4, Programs A and B continues the City's support for rural land use
designations and protection of riparian corridors and critical biological habitat outside
the city limits.
Policy 4-P-5 requires the city to cooperate with Sonoma County to support wetlands
mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in unincorporated areas outside the UGB.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Plan which avoid or lessen the. significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 38
Significance. After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: 4-P-1 outlines a comprehensive river management. strategy for the
Petaluma River that includes setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank
planting and retention of trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policies 4-P-2 and Policy 4-P-3 require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and sensitive
habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future development
applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at the time of
project-level environmental review. Policies 4-P-4 and 4-P-5 require the city to
cooperate with Sonoma County to protect riparian corridors and critical biological
habitats, and support wetlands mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in
unincorporated areas outside the UGB.
27. Impact 3.8-5 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in
substantial adverse effects on American badger or its habitat.
Plan Policies/Mitigation .Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M outlines a
comprehensive river management strategy for the Petaluma River that includes
setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank planting and retention of
trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policy 4-P-2, Program A provides the order of priority for protection: avoidance, on-
site mitigation, and off-site mitigation.
Policy 4-P-3, Programs A and B require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and
sensitive habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future
development applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at
the time of project-level environmental review.
Policy 4-P-4, Programs A and B continues the City's support for rural land use
designations and protection of riparian corridors and critical biological habitat outside
the city limits.
Policy 4-P-5 requires the city to cooperate with Sonoma County to support wetlands
mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in unincorporated areas outside the UGB.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: 4-P-1 outlines a comprehensive river management strategy for the
Petaluma River that includes setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank
planting and retention of trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policies 4-P-2 and Policy 4-P-3 require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and sensitive
habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future development
applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at the time of
project-level environmental review. Policies 4-P-4 and 4-P-5 require the city to
cooperate with Sonoma County to protect riparian corridors and critical biological
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 39
habitats, and support wetlands mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in
unincorporated areas outside the UGB.
28. Impact 3.8-6 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in
substantial adverse effects on western pond turtle, California
tiger salamander, foothill yellow-legged frog, California red-
legged frog, or their habitat.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M outlines a
comprehensive river management strategy for the Petaluma River that includes
setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank planting and .retention of
trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policy 4-P-2, Program A provides the order of priority for protection: avoidance, on-
site mitigation, and off-site mitigation.
Policy 4-P-3, Programs A and B require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and
sensitive habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future
development applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at
the time of project-level environmental review.
Policy 4-P-4, Programs A and B continues the City's support for rural land use
designations and protection of riparian corridors and critical biological habitat outside
the city limits.
Policy 4-P-5 requires the city to cooperate with Sonoma County to support wetlands
mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in unincorporated areas outside the UGB.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Plan which avoid or lessen the. significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: 4-P-1 outlines a comprehensive river management strategy for the
Petaluma River that includes setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank
planting and retention of trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policies 4-P-2 and Policy 4-P-3 require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and sensitive
habitat areas and site. specific biological resources assessments in all future development
applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at the time of
project-level environmental review: Policies 4-P-4 and 4-P-5 require the city to
cooperate with Sonoma County to protect riparian corridors and critical biological
habitats, and support wetlands mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in
unincorporated areas outside the UGB.
29. Impact 3.8-7 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in
substantial adverse effects on nesting raptor species or their
habitat.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 40
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M outlines a
comprehensive river management strategy for the Petaluma River that includes
setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank planting and retention of
trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policy 4-P-2, Program A provides the order of priority for protection: avoidance, on-
site mitigation, and off-site mitigation.
Policy 4-P-3, Programs A and B require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and
sensitive habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future
development applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at
the time of project-level environmental review.
Policy 4-P-4, Programs A and B continues the City's support for rural land use
designations and protection of riparian corridors and critical biological habitat outside
the city limits.
Policy 4-P-5 requires the city to cooperate with Sonoma County to support wetlands
mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in unincorporated areas outside the UGB.
Policy 4-P-6 recognizes the value of certain trees for improving air quality and
identifies the replacement of trees when removed for project development.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: 4-P-1 outlines a comprehensive river management strategy for the
Petaluma River that includes setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards., bank
planting and retention of trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policies 4-P-2 and Policy 4-P-3 require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and sensitive
habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future development
applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at the time of
project-level environmental review. Policies 4-P-4 and 4-P-5 require the city to
cooperate with Sonoma County to protect riparian corridors and critical biological
habitats, and support wetlands mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in
unincorporated areas outside the UGB. Policy 4-P-6 identifies the benefit of certain trees
for improving air quality and calls for the Development Code update to establish ratio
and size standards for replacing trees lost at time of development.
30. Impact 3.8-8 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in
substantial adverse effects on California black rail bird, San
Pablo song sparrow, Saltmarsh common yellow throat or other
special status bird species.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Fage 41
Policy 4-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M outlines a
comprehensive river management strategy for the Petaluma River that includes
setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank planting and retention of
trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policy 4-P-2, Program A provides the order of priority for protection: avoidance, on-
site .mitigation, and off-site mitigation.
Policy 4-P-3, Programs A and B require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and
sensitive habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future
development applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at
the time of project-level environmental review.
Policy 4-P-4, Programs A and B continues the City's support for rural land use
designations and protection of riparian corridors and critical biological habitat outside
the city limits.
Policy 4-P-5 requires the city to cooperate with Sonoma County to support wetlands
mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in unincorporated areas outside the UGB.
Policy 4-P-6 recognizes the value of certain trees for improving air quality and
identifies the replacement of trees when removed for project development.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: 4-P-1 outlines a comprehensive river management strategy for the
Petaluma River that includes setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank
planting and retention of trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policies 4-P-2 and Policy 4-P-3 require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and sensitive
habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future development
applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at the time of
project-level environmental review. Policies 4-P-4 and 4-P-5 require the city to
cooperate with Sonoma County to protect riparian corridors and critical biological
habitats, and support wetlands mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in
unincorporated areas outside the UGB. Policy 4-P-6 identifies the benefit of certain trees
for improving air quality and calls for the Development Code update to establish ratio
and size standards for replacing trees lost at time of development.
31. Impact 3.8-9 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could result in
substantial adverse effects on oak woodland and special status
plant species or their habitat.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M outlines a
comprehensive river management strategy for the Petaluma River that includes
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 42
setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank planting and retention of
trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policy 4-P-2, Program A provides the order of priority for protection: avoidance, on-
site mitigation, and off-site mitigation.
Policy 4-P-3, Programs A and B require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and
sensitive habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future
development applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at
the time of project-level environmental review.
Policy 4-P-4, Programs A and B continues the City's support for rural land use
designations and protection of riparian corridors and critical biological habitat outside
the city limits.
Policy 4-P-5 requires the city to cooperate with Sonoma County to support wetlands
mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in unincorporated areas outside the UGB.
Policy 4-P-6 recognizes the value of certain trees for improving air quality and
identifies the replacement of trees when removed for project development.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Plan which avoid or lessen the .significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: 4-P-1 outlines a comprehensive river management strategy for the
Petaluma River that includes setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank
planting and retention of trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policies 4-P-2 and Policy 4-P-3 require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and sensitive
habitat areas and site specific. biological resources assessments in all future development
applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at the time of
project-level environmental review. Policies 4-P-4 and 4-P-5 require the city to
cooperate with Sonoma County to protect riparian corridors and critical biological
habitats, and support wetlands mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in
unincorporated areas outside the UGB. Policy 4-P-6 identifies the benefit of certain
trees for improving air quality and calls for the Development Code update to establish
ratio and size standards for replacing trees lost at time of development.
L. Wetlands and Habitat
32. Impact 3.8-10 Implementation of the proposed General Plan could adversely
affect riparian areas, wetlands and/or "other waters of the
United States".
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen. this impact:
Policy 4-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M outlines a
comprehensive river management strategy for the Petaluma River that includes
setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank planting and retention of
trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Yage 43
Policy 4-P-2, Program A provides the order of priority for protection: avoidance, on-
site mitigation, and off-.site mitigation.
Policy 4-P-3, Programs A and B require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and
sensitive habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future
development applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at
the time of project-level environmental review.
Policy 4-P-4, Programs A and B continues the City's support for rural land use
designations and protection of riparian corridors and critical biological habitat outside
the city limits.
Policy 4-P-5 requires the city to cooperate with Sonoma County to support wetlands
mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in unincorporated areas outside the UGB.
Policy 4-P-6 recognizes the value of certain trees for improving air quality and
identifies the replacement of trees when removed for project development.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: 4-P-1 outlines a comprehensive river management strategy for the
Petaluma River that includes setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank
planting and retention of trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policies 4-P-2 and Policy 4-P-3 require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and sensitive
habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future development
applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at the time of
project-level environmental review. Policies 4-P-4 and 4-P-5 require the city to
cooperate with Sonoma County to protect riparian corridors and critical biological
habitats, and support wetlands mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in
unincorporated areas outside the UGB. Policy 4-P-6 identifies the benefit of certain trees
for improving air quality and calls for the Development Code update to establish ratio
and size standards for replacing trees lost at time of development.
33. Impact 3.8-11 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would not
interfere with the movement of fish or wildlife species.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L and M outlines a.
comprehensive river management strategy for the Petaluma River that includes
setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank planting and retention of
trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policy 4-P-2, Program A provides the order of priority for protection: avoidance, on-
site mitigation, and off-site mitigation.
Policy 4-P-3, Programs A and B require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and
sensitive habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 44
development applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at
the time of project-level environmental review.
Policy 4-P-4, Programs A and B continues the City's support for rural land use
designations and protection of riparian corridors and critical biological habitat outside
the city limits.
Policy 4-P-5 requires the city to cooperate with Sonoma County to support wetlands
mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in unincorporated areas outside the UGB.
Policy 4-P-6 recognizes the value of certain trees for improving air quality and
identifies the replacement of trees when removed for project development. This
policy would apply to trees within the riparian corridor as well.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: 4-P-1 outlines a comprehensive river management strategy for the
Petaluma River that includes setbacks, buffers, compliance with NPDES standards, bank
planting and retention of trees to reduce ambient water temperature and other measures.
Policies 4-P-2 and Policy 4-P-3 require conservation of wildlife ecosystems and sensitive
habitat areas and site specific biological resources assessments in all future development.
applications, with the imposition of appropriate mitigation measures at the time of
project-level environmental review. Policies 4-P-4 and 4-P-5 require the city to
cooperate with Sonoma County to protect riparian corridors and critical biological
habitats, and support wetlands mitigation and oak woodlands conservation in
unincorporated areas outside the UGB. Policy 4-P-6 identifies the benefit of certain trees
for improving air quality and calls for the Development Code update to establish ratio
and size standards for replacing trees lost at time of development.
M. Noise, Vibration
34. Impact 3.9-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan would add new
stationary sources of noise, but would not exceed the City noise
standards.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 10-P-3 Programs A, B, D, E, F and G provides for the elimination or
minimization of existing noise problems by minimizing the increase of noise levels in.
the future.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: Under the various elements of Policy 10-P-3, the city will locate and
design transportation facilities to minimize noise effects on adjacent areas. It will
determine acceptable uses and installation requirements in noise-impacted areas using
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 45
Land Use Compatibility Standards in General Plan Figure 10-2. It will require a
professional acoustical engineer to provide technical analysis design mitigation measures
for development proposed in areas with noise levels greater than 65 dB CNEL, discourage
location of new' noise-sensitive uses in such areas, and when permitted, require
mitigation to achieve interior noise levels not in excess of 45 cB CNEL. The city will
establish noise-emission standards for city vehicles and continue to require noise control
or mitigation for construction related. noise. The city will require noise-generated fixed
equipment such as air conditions and condensers to be placed inside walls of new
buildings or on roof-tops of central units to reduce impacts on near-by sensitive
receptors.
35. Impact 3.9-3 Construction activities associated with implementation of the
proposed General Plan would generate and expose persons
nearby to excessive groundborne vibration. or groundborne
noise levels.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 10-P-3 D provides continued control of noise mitigation measures for
construction equipment or activity per the adopted Noise Ordinance.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required. in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the. significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less. than significant.
Explanation: The city will require compliance with its Noise Ordinance, which
establishes controls on construction noise. It will continue to require control of noise or
mitigation measures for noise-emitting construction equipment or activity.
36. Impact 3.9-4 Construction activities associated with implementation of the
proposed General Plan could generate noise levels that exceed
the City standards.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 10-P-3 D refers to the continued use of the City's noise ordinance.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The city will require compliance with its Noise Ordinance, which
establishes controls on construction noise. It will continue to require control of noise or
mitigation measures for noise-emitting construction equipment or activity.
N. Air Quality
37. Impact 3..10-2 Implementation of the proposed General Plan may contribute
substantially to an existing air quality violation.
Plan. Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C:S. Page 46
Policy 4-P-7, Program A reduces vehicle related air pollution by promoting amulti-
modal transportation system.
Policy 4-P-8 supports the development of alternative fuel stations.
Policy 4-P-9 requires a percentage of parking spaces in parking lots or garages to
provide vehicle charging facilities.
Policy 4-P-10 requires charging and alternative fuel facilities at new and remodeled
gas stations.
Policy 4-P-11 calls for the promotion of ride-sharing and car-sharing programs.
Policy 4-P-12 regulates new and expanded drive-thru facilities which increase idling
vehicles.
Policy 4-P-13 requires roundabouts, where feasible, as alternative to signalization.
Policy 4-P-14 integrates Intelligent Transportation Technologies into the City
transportation system.
Policy 4-P-15, Programs A, B, C and D reduces emissions from stationary point
sources and incorporates measures into new development .practices to reduce air
pollution.
Policy 4-P-17 identifies the use of buffer zones and locating new land uses, which
may be stationary sources of air pollution away from sensitive receptor land uses and
areas.
Policy 4-P-23 provides for the staffing of a Green Program Manager.
Policy 4-P-24 requires compliance with AB 32 and its governing regulations.
Policy 4-P-25 connects additional adopted State standards designed to reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the City's jurisdictional authority.
Policy 4-P-26 calls for the implementation of measures contained in the municipal
Climate Action Plan.
Policy 4-P-27 calls for the preparation of a Community Climate Action Plan to
achieve the goals of Resolution 2005-118 (25% below 19901evels by 2015).
Policy 4-P-28 calls for the preparation of a Feasibility Report on the possible forming
of a Community Choice Aggregation for the purchase of bulk electric loads.
Policy 4-P-29 requires training City staff on new technology and improving energy
efficiency in public facilities.
Policy 4-P-31, Programs A, B, C, D and E provides for community outreach and
education on "green tips" and green business practices.
Policy 4-P-33 suggests developing aCity-sponsored program to assist home-owners in
purchasing renewable energy systems.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: Motor vehicle related air pollution, the major source of criteria air
pollutants in the Bay Area Air Basin, accounts for the vast majority of carbon monoxide
and particulate matter and more than 25% of the reactive oxygen gas and nitrogen
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 47
dioxide in the region. Alternative transportation enhancements and modification of land
use and circulation patterns to promote walking and bicycling are a major part of the
city's approach to reducing vehicle related emissions. The city will continue to work
with the Bay Area Air quality Management District to achieve. emissions reductions for
non-attainment pollutants, implementing control measures as required by State and
federal statutes. Construction dust abatement measures are required of all future projects
and measures are recommended to be included in construction contracts to reduce
emissions from construction equipment. The city's ongoing Climate Action Program has
identified green building codes, energy audits, incentives for solar and other renewable
energy sources as some potential avenues for reducing air quality impacts of the Plan.
The city's Revised Draft EIR also sets out a carefully analyzed greenhouse gas emissions
("GHG") reduction strategy that affects air quality impacts from carbon dioixide,
methane, nitrous oxide. and halocarbons. The Plan recommends funding or designating a
Green Program manager to oversee implementation of all GHG policies and programs
identified in the Plan. Through monitoring new technology and incorporating those
technologies into the planning process, the City has committed to continuing its diligent
effort to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, encourage multi-modal transportation systems
which reduce citizen reliability on the automobile, and require the most energy-efficient
construction methods to be incorporated into new and remodeling construction
activities.
38. Impact 3.10-3 Implementation of the proposed General Plan may result in a
cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants for
which the region is in nonattainment under an applicable
national or State ambient air quality standard.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-7, Program A reduces vehicle related air pollution by promoting amulti-
modal transportation system.
Policy 4-P-8 supports the development of alternative fuel stations.
Policy 4-P-9 requires a percentage of parking spaces in parking lots or garages to
provide vehicle charging facilities.
Policy 4-P-10 requires charging and alternative fuel facilities at new and remodeled
gas stations.
Policy 4-P-11 calls .for the promotion of ride-sharing and car-sharing programs.
Policy 4-P-12 regulates new and expanded drive-thru facilities which increase idling
vehicles.
Policy 4-P-13 requires roundabouts, where feasible, as alternative to signalization.
Policy 4-P-14 integrates Intelligent Transportation Technologies into the City
transportation system.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 48
Policy 4-P-15, Programs A, B, C and D reduces emissions from stationary point
sources and incorporates measures into new development practices to reduce air
pollution.
Policy 4-P-17 identifies the use of buffer zones and locating new land uses, which
may be stationary sources of air pollution away from sensitive receptor land uses and
areas.
Policy 4-P-Z3 provides for the staffing of a Green Program Manager.
Policy 4-P-24 requires compliance with AB 32 and its governing regulations.
Policy 4-P-25 connects additional adopted State standards designed to .reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the City's jurisdictional authority.
Policy 4-P-26 calls for the implementation of measures contained in the municipal
Climate Action Plan.
Policy 4-P-27 calls for the preparation of a Community Climate Action Plan to
achieve the goals of Resolution 2005-118 (25% below 1990 levels by 2015).
Policy 4-P-28 calls for the preparation of a Feasibility Report on the possible. forming
of a Community Choice Aggregation for the purchase of bulk electric loads.
Policy 4-P-29 requires training City staff on new technology and improving energy
efficiency in public facilities.
Policy 4-P-31, Programs A, B, C, D and E provides for community outreach and
education on "green tips" and green business practices.
Policy 4-P-32 calls for the development and implementation of a municipal
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program.
Policy 4-P-33 suggests developing aCity-sponsored program to assist home-owners in
purchasing renewable energy systems.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified. in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: While the community's air pollution potential is low, it is recognized
that the community has a role in cumulative regional air quality. Vehicles are the most
significant cause of elevated ozone levels in the region; wood burning and other outdoor
burning is another source.. The prevailing winds tend to carry any pollutants southeast
away from the community, which does not relieve the community from the need to
reduce the impact. Numerous policies and programs call for reduction of air quality
impacts through modifying the community's .reliability on automobiles and reducing
instances of idling vehicles. Source reduction through regulations placed on businesses
capable of generating stationary source pollutants, as well as monitoring to ensure that
impact from potentially polluting facilities or land uses do not impact land uses used by
members of the population sensitive to the effects of air pollutants. As with greenhouse
gas emissions, the Plan recognizes the need to reduce existing air quality impacts
regardless of new development and incorporates policies and programs to achieve that
reduction.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 49
39. Impact 3.10-4 CO emissions associated with buildout of the proposed project
may result in exposure of sensitive receptors to CO emissions.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-7, Program A reduces vehicle related air pollution by promoting amulti-
modal transportation system.
Policy 4-P-8 supports the development of alternative fuel stations.
Policy 4-P-9 requires a percentage of parking spaces in parking lots or garages to
provide vehicle charging facilities.
Policy 4-P-10 requires charging and alternative fuel facilities at new and remodeled
gas stations.
Policy 4-P-11 calls for the promotion of ride-sharing and car-sharing programs.
Policy 4-P-12 regulates new and expanded drive-thru facilities which increase idling
vehicles.
Policy 4-P-13 requires roundabouts, where feasible, as alternative to signalization.
Policy 4-P-14 integrates Intelligent Transportation Technologies into the City
transportation system.
Policy 4-P-15, Programs A, B, C and D reduces emissions from stationary point
sources and incorporates measures into new development practices to reduce air
pollution.
Policy 4-P-17 identifies the use of buffer zones and locating new land uses, which
may be stationary sources of air pollution away from sensitive receptor land uses and
areas.
Policy 4-P-23 provides for the staffing of a Green Program Manager.
Policy 4-P-24 requires compliance with AB 32 and its governing regulations.
Policy 4-P-25 connects additional adopted State standards designed to reduce
Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the City's jurisdictional authority.
Policy 4-P-26 calls for the implementation of measures contained in ,the municipal
Climate Action Plan.
Policy 4-P-27 calls for the preparation of a Community Climate Action Plan to
achieve the goals of Resolution 2005-118 (25% below 19901evels by 2015).
Policy 4-P-28 calls for the preparation of a Feasibility Report on the possible forming
of a Community Choice Aggregation for the purchase of bulk electric loads.
Policy 4-P-29 requires training City staff on new technology and improving energy
efficiency in public facilities.
Policy 4-P-31, Programs A, B, C, D and E provides for community outreach and
education on "green tips" and green business practices.
Policy 4-P-32 calls for the development and implementation of a municipal
Environmentally Preferable Purchasing Program.
Policy 4-P-33 suggests developing aCity-sponsored program to assist home-owners in
purchasing renewable energy systems.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 50
Finding: Policies,. changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The city used CALINE4, a dispersion model for predicting CO
concentrations recommended by the Bay Area Air Quality Management District
(BAAQMD), to estimate pollutant concentrations at sensitive. receptors near congested
roadways and intersections. Typical sensitive receptors include residences, schools,
athletic facilities, long term health care facilities and retirement homes. The EIR analysis
shows that buildout from Plan development is not expected to expose existing or future
sensitive areas in the city to substantial CO concentrations because CO modeling at the
19 intersections in the city expected to operate at LOS D or worse at buildout would still
be substantially below national and State ambient air quality standards. Although CO
standards for sensitive receptors are not exceeded, the many policies and programs in the
Plan which are designed to improve existing air quality will also have a positive effect on
the level of CO emissions from new development.
40. Impact 3.10-5 Development and occupation of the proposed General Plan
could result in placement of sensitive land uses near potential
sources of objectionable odors, dust, or toxic air contaminants.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 4-P-17 identifies the use of buffer zones and locating new land uses, which
may be stationary sources of air pollution away from sensitive receptor land uses and
areas.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: New stationary sources of air pollutants, such as industrial facilities,
will be located sufficient distances away from residential areas and facilities that serve
sensitive receptors to avoid significant. impacts. Within new residential and sensitive
receptor sites, buffer zones will be included to separate those uses from potential sources
of odors, agricultural dust and stationary sources of toxic air contaminants.
O. Visual
41. Impact 3.11-1 New development may block views of Sonoma, Mountain and
ridgelines and/or alter the visual character of the hills.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 1-P-16, Programs A and B require creation of development and design
standards developing in hillside areas and provide points to be addressed within the
Development Code to preserve unique natural features, require appropriate
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 51
architectural design for a hillside setting and preventing significant alternation of
hillside topography.
Policy 2-P-8 requires single loaded streets along the Urban Separator and riparian
corridors (which primarily run east/west toward/from Sonoma Mountain).
Policy 2-P-65 requires dedication of the Urban Separator and/or pathway within the
West Hills subarea.
Policy 2-P-70 quantifies the area to be dedicated as Urban Separator within the West
Hills subarea.
Policy 2-P-71 calls for special gateway treatment on I Street.
Policy 2-P-72 calls for preserving existing public viewsheds.
Policy 10-P-1, Program C requires geotechnical studies prior to development.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The Plan requires strengthened hillside development regulations which
will constrain development to preserve ridgelines, open space and natural assets. The
regulations will offer the potential for appropriate forms of clustered development to
preserve open space and hillside views in Rural and Very Low Residential areas
within the West Hills, South Hills and Petaluma Boulevard North subareas.
Dedication of the Urban Separator will be required along the western and southern
boundaries of the UGB and the Urban Separator will be extended to the extent
feasible to provide an area up to 300 feet in width along the eastern boundary of the
.South Hills subarea. Streets along the Urban Separator and riparian corridors will be
single-loaded to create linear open space corridors. The Hillside land use overlay will
also protect views of the hills and ridgelines.
42. Impact 3.11-2 New development and intensification along the Petaluma River
could adversely affect the visual character of this natural
resource.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this .impact:
Policy 1-P-40, Programs A and B calls for dedication, improvement, and maintenance
of the Petaluma River Corridor (PRC).
Policy 1-P-41 identifies the need for a funding mechanism to ensure maintenance of
the Petaluma River Corridor.
Policy 1-P-42 requires a discretionary review process on lands subject to the PRC.
Policy 1-P-43 requires incorporation of the River as a major design focal point.
Policy 1-P-44 identifies the city's intent to develop the River as apublicly-accessible
green ribbon in accordance with the Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan.
and within the context of the PRC Design Standards.
Policy 1-P-45 requires development to incorporate public access points to the River.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 52
Policy 1-P-46 requires that development preserve, protect and enhance the ecological
and biological health and diversity of the River.
Policy 2-P-34 fosters connection to the River from the Payran-McKinley subarea.
Policy 2-P-38 promotes greater access to the River from the Payran-McKinley
subarea.
Policy 2-P-41, Programs A, B, C and D provides direction for the connectivity to the
River within the Petaluma Boulevard South subarea.
Policy 2-P-42 preserves vista eastward from the Petaluma Boulevard South subarea.
Policy 2-P-57 fosters connectivity to the River from the Petaluma Boulevard .North -
North of Cinnabar Avenue subarea.
Policy 2-P-58 connects the River Access and Enhancement Plan as an effective tool to
implement the improvements called for within the Petaluma River Corridor.
Policy 2-P-59 promotes greater connectivity and views to the River from the
Petaluma Boulevard North -North of Cinnabar Avenue subarea.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into
the Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The Plan creates a Petaluma River Corridor, which shall be set aside for
the creation of flood terraces, where appropriate, with all development within that
designation subject to additional discretionary review. Views and green space are also
protected. The Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan will be implemented to
improve environmentally responsible access to the river through road extensions,
bikeways and trails, orienting future river-adjacent development to the .river while
preserving and protecting the ecological and biological health and diversity of the
Petaluma River.
43. Impact 3.11-3 New development and redevelopment activities may potentially
degrade the existing visual quality of the city through
incompatibilities with existing development in scale and/or
character.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 1-P-3, Program A preserves scale and character of established
residential neighborhoods
Policy 2-P-48 maintains rural character within the Petaluma Boulevard North
- North of Cinnabar Avenue subarea.
Policy 2-P-62 maintains rural. character within the West Hills subarea.
Policy 2-P-114 allows lot consolidation only when it will not negatively
impact existing character within the West subarea.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page ~3
Policy 6-P-7, Programs A and B requires the dedication and improvement of
neighborhood parks and connects park impact fees to the adopted city park
standards.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The policies which mitigate this impact are largely related to
preservation of the overall scale and character of residential neighborhoods through
density standards, floor area ratios and other regulations to be developed and maintained
in the city's development code. Plan requirements for park land dedication and
improvements will also maintain the visual quality and scale of existing neighborhoods.
P. Archaeological, Historic Resources
44. Impact 3.12-1 New development proposed under the General Plan has the
potential to disrupt undiscovered archaeological resources.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 3-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J and K protect historic and
archaeological resources; maintains the historic-era integrity of existing Historic
Districts; requires the development of historic preservation guidelines, pursuit of
Certified Local Government (CLG) status; creation of a central repository, and
requiring preparation of a resource mitigation plan if remains are discovered during
development.
.Policy 3-P-5 identifies the protection of historic resources as a key consideration and
an equal component in the development review process.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: The Plan requires a records review for development proposed in areas
that are considered archeologically sensitive for Native American and/or historic remains.
The EIR identifies 21 recorded native American and historic cultural resources located
within the UGB. All development under the Plan will have to comply with existing
federal and State law regarding preservation of archaeological or historical resources. A
resource mitigation plan and monitoring program by a qualified archeologist will be
required in the event that archeological remains are discovered. Historic resources
preservation and protection in general is greatly strengthened throughout the Plan,
particularly by Policy 3-P-1, Programs A-H, discussed in more detail below.
45. Impact 3.12-2 New infill development within previously builtout areas in the
City has the potential to impact sites of local historic importance
and overall historic setting of downtown.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 54
Policy 3-P-1, Programs A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H protect historic and archaeological
resources; maintains the historic-era integrity of existing Historic Districts; requires
the development of historic preservation guidelines, pursuit of Certified Local
Government (CLG) status; creation of a central repository, and requiring preparation
of a resource mitigation plan if remains are discovered during development.
Policy 3-P-5 identifies the protection of historic resources as a key consideration and
an equal component in the development review process.
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance. After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: To emphasis the City Council and community's commitment to
preserving historic resource, The Plan contains a separate and detailed Historic
Preservation element. This element of the Plan contains policies which require
maintaining the historic-era integrity of the Petaluma Historic Commercial District, the
Oak-Hill-Brewster District and the "A" Street Historic District neighborhoods. A
citywide survey of historic and cultural resources will be done to create an historic
resource inventory. Historic preservation guidelines will be developed to protect
resources that are not presently designated, and Certified Local Government status will
be pursued through the California Office of Historic Preservation. Incentives such as the
Storefront Improvement Loan Program will be continued and expanded. Policy 3-P-5
requires the consideration of historic resource protection as part of development review.
Q; Hazardous Materials
46. Impact 3.13-1 Buildout of the proposed General Plan could create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials.
Plan Policies/Mitigation Measures which avoid or substantially lessen this impact:
Policy 10-P-4, Programs A, B, C minimizes the risk of exposure ~ to hazardous
materials through requiring compliance with Sonoma's Countywide Integrated Waste.
Management Plan and the Consolidated Unified Protection Agency (CUPA) program
elements; calls for the preparation of an inventory of environmentally contaminated
sites
Finding: Policies, changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into the
Plan which avoid or lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the EIR.
Significance After Plan Policies/Mitigation: Less than significant.
Explanation: Compliance with all applicable State and local regulations will
minimize the risk to life and property from production, use, storage and transportation of
hazardous materials. The Plan requires the city to comply with Sonoma's Countywide
Integrated Waste Management Plan and with all of the Consolidated Unified Protection
Agency program elements. The city will prepare and maintain an inventory of
environmentally contaminated sites, and educate and work with landowners in the
Resolution No. 2008-084N.C.S. Page 55
cleanup of these sites, using U.S. Environmental Protection Agency grant funds awards in
2005 for assessment of potential brownfield properties in the city. Additional U.S. EPA
fund are being applied for to further advance brownfield site cleanup in the city. The
city also will establish special zoning designations and environmental review processes
that limit the location of industry, research and business facilities using hazardous
materials to require safe distances between these sites and residential areas, groundwater
recharge areas and waterways.
V. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING SIGNIFICANT
IRREVERSIBLE CHANGES AND GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACTS.
A. Adoption of the Plan would allow the City to approve future projects that would
result in the continued commitment of the Planning Referral Area to urban and
community-centered development, thereby precluding other uses. Once so
committed, restoration of future project sites to pre-developed conditions would not
normally be feasible given the degree of disturbance and the level of capital
investment.
B. Noise impacts from the Plan would also remain significant due to the increase in
traffic associated with buildout under the Plan, and cumulative noise from traffic at
buildout and noise from possible future rail and/or trolley service.
C. Resources that would be permanently and continually consumed by .Plan
implementation include water, electricity, natural gas, and fossil fuels.. However, the
amount and rate of consumption of these resources would not result in the
unnecessary, inefficient, or wasteful use of resources. New water supply is expected to
be provided almost entirely through use of recycled water and water conservation,
minimizing or eliminating increased consumption of local groundwater and/or
potable water from the Sonoma County Water Agency supply. With respect to
operational activities, compliance with all applicable building codes, as well as
mitigation measures, planning policies, and standard conservation features, will
ensure that all natural resources are conserved to the maximum extent possible.
Emissions from all sources will be limited to the extent feasible by relevant Plan.
policies which require the application of existing technology and creation of a
Citywide climate action program, as discussed in the Revised Draft EIR, GHG. It is
also possible that new technologies or systems will emerge, or will become more cost-
effective or user-friendly, so as to further reduce the reliance upon nonrenewable
natural resources. For example, mobile emissions associated with automobiles and
trucks are anticipated to be less polluting in the future due to new technology
designed to improve the efficiency of engines. Nonetheless, construction activities
related to Plan buildout would result in the irretrievable commitment of
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 56
nonrenewable energy resources, primarily in the form of fossil fuels (including fuel
oil), natural gas, and gasoline for automobiles and construction equipment.
D. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2 also requires a discussion of the potential for
irreversible environmental damage caused by an accident associated with the Plan.
While the Plan would result in the use, transport, storage, and disposal of hazardous
wastes for future projects, as described in Section 3.13 of the EIR (Hazardous
Material), all activities would comply with applicable local, State and federal laws.
related to hazardous materials, which significantly .reduces the likelihood and severity
of accidents that could result in irreversible environmental damage. In addition, the
Plan does not contemplate any uniquely hazardous specific uses.
E. Implementation of the Plan would result in the long-term commitment of resources
to urban development. The most notable significant irreversible impacts are a
reduction in natural. vegetation and wildlife communities; increased generation of
pollutants; and the short-term commitment of non-renewable and/or slowly
renewable. natural and energy resources, such as lumber and other forest products and
mineral resources during construction activities. Water resources to serve Plan
implementation, as noted above, are provided by increased water conservation and
re-use of recycled water, rather than non-renewable supply. Operations associated
with future uses would also consume natural gas and electrical energy. These
irreversible impacts are, at least until the development of more advanced technology,
unavoidable consequences of urban growth and described in Section 4.2 of the EIR.
F. While the Plan is designed to accommodate future growth projections, all of the
growth-inducing impacts of that planned growth are identified, analyzed and
evaluated in the Plan. Because the Plan is a long-range planning document that
covers the entire Planning Referral Area, its potential growth-inducing impacts are
necessarily more diffuse and the resulting analysis of those impacts is necessarily
more general. The Plan will not be the sole contributor to growth in the Planning
Referral Area, and activities outside of the city's jurisdiction may also affect long term
impacts. Because the Plan is self-mitigating to the fullest extent possible, Plan goals,
policies and programs are designed to reduce the. impacts of Plan growth to less than
significant levels. This is largely accomplished, except for those few impacts which
remain significant and unavoidable and are so identified in the Plan EIR. The extent
of the projected population increase and the amount of housing, public services and
infrastructure which will be sufficient to serve the population. which is expected to
work and live in the city through Plan buildout are all identified and analyzed in the
Plan EIR. Job growth and jobs/housing balance are evaluated. The Plan is expected to
add 15,662 City residents and 13,380 new jobs. The number of employed residents is
expected to grow by 14,750, slightly more than the number of new jobs, decreasing
the city's current jobs/housing ratio of 1.12 to 1.05 (DEIR Table 2.4.-5). However, the
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 57
Plan contains land use and regulatory policies which seek to improve this balance by
providing for a diversity of employment opportunities and reasonable growth for
commercial uses. The Plan proposes no expansion to the city's Urban Growth
Boundary and emphasizes infill development and Smart Growth principles, including
increases in mixed use development and multi-modal transportation. While the Plan
identifies a new water and wastewater program to serve planned growth, that
program relies almost entirely on increased use of recycled water and water
conservation, rather than increased use of local groundwater or additional supply
from the Sonoma County Water Agency. All growth-inducing impacts have been
analyzed in the EIR.
G. The City Council further finds that each mitigation measure relied on in these
Findings to reduce an identified impact is feasible. Each relevant identified
mitigation measure will be required of; incorporated into or otherwise complied with
by any development which proceeds under this Plan.
H. The City Council further finds that for each identified implementation or mitigation
measure that requires the cooperation or action of another agency, adoption and/or
implementation of each such .mitigation measure is within the responsibility and
jurisdiction of the public agency identified, and the measures can and should be
adopted and/or implemented by said agency.
VI. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
Because the Plan contains a set of projects and policies which set the cumulative
development scenario for the city as a whole through 2025, it is by nature a
cumulative analysis.
The EIR analysis of traffic and air quality, including greenhouse gas emissions,
evaluates a cumulative scenario, including projected future growth in the region.
Therefore, there are no additional cumulative traffic. or air quality impacts which
remain significant and. unavoidable other than those discussed in Section III of these
Findings.
Potentially adverse effects associated with seismic events, geology and soils are
generally site-specific and do not combine with similar effects from other projects in
the Planning Referral Area. Implementation of the city's Building Code, NPDES
system requirements, and Plan safety policies will maintain site-specific geotechnical
conditions at a less than significant. level. State and regional regulatory measures, as
well as those of other jurisdictions in the region would also control or eliminate
potentially hazardous geotechnical conditions outside of the City's jurisdictional area,
reducing cumulative impacts to a level of insignificance.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 58
Cumulative biological resource impacts on a regional level are primarily related to
habitat conversion. Those impacts will be reduced to a less than significant level
through Plan policies identified in Section 3.8 of the EIR, through site-specific
mitigation applicable to future projects and through Plan open space policies.
There are no identified cumulative hazardous materials effects that will not be
reduced to levels of insignificance by application of the city's Municipal Code and.
applicable EPA, DOT, federal and California OSHA and CUPA permitting processes
and Plan policies.
The one cumulative impact of Plan which remains significant and unavoidable and
which is which is not already analyzed in the EIR Chapter 3 impact analysis could
result if proposed passenger rail service by the Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit
(SMART) system and/or freight operations by the. North Coast Railroad Authority
resume along the Northwestern Pacific Railroad rail corridor; and/or electric trolley
service begins on weekends and holidays along the old Petaluma and Santa Rosa
electric rights-of--way adjacent to the NWP rail line from downtown Petaluma to
Corona Road, as proposed by a heritage trolley group. A draft EIR for the SMART
project identified severe noise impacts according to Federal Transportation. Authority
standards for ZZ residences within Petaluma because of horn operations for at-grade
crossings. Freight rail service could generate noise levels of 66 dBA (CNEL) within
100 feet of the railroad. tracks, assuming. eight train movements per day, three
engines, 100 railcars and average speed of 40 miles per hour. Trolley operations
would generate noise levels lower than those from U.S. 101 and the NWP/SMART
rail services. Rail transit noise would accumulate with traffic noise increases
identified as Impact 3.9.1 in Chapter 3 of the EIR, and result in a significant increase
along the rail alignment, particularly in the vicinity of at-grade crossings. It is not
presently possible to determine with any degree of certainty if and when passenger or
freight rail service or electric trolley service might commence. Regulatory authority
over the rail system is within the jurisdiction of agencies other than the City of
Petaluma. There is no feasible mitigation for this impact, and cumulative impacts
from rail and traffic noise must therefore be considered significant and unavoidable.
The City Council further finds that each mitigation measure relied on in these
Findings to reduce an identified impact is feasible. Each relevant identified
mitigation measure will be required of, incorporated ,into or otherwise complied with
by any development which proceeds under this Plan. The City Council further finds
that for each identified implementation or mitigation measure that requires the
cooperation or action of another agency, adoption and/or implementation of each
such mitigation measure is within the responsibility and jurisdiction of the public
agency identified, and the measures can and should be adopted and/or implemented
by said agency.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Nage 59
VII. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROJECT.
A. The EIR identified the significant environmental impacts of the Plan and mitigation
measures to reduce those impacts. The significant unavoidable impacts identified in
the EIR are the subject of Section III of these Findings. The Findings in this. Section
VII examine whether any of the feasible alternatives would substantially reduce the
significant unavoidable impacts of the Plan.
B. The City Council has considered the alternatives to the Plan as analyzed in Section 5
of the Draft EIR and more fully explained in Master Response A of the Responses to
Comments in the Final EIR. For the reasons set forth below, the City Council finds
them infeasible because of specific economic, legal, social, technological or other
considerations pursuant to Public Resources Code Sections 21002 and 20181(a)(3) and
CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(3).
C. The City Council finds that the EIR evaluated a reasonable range of feasible
alternatives to the Plan and that the EIR considered in detail only those alternatives
which could feasibly attain the basic objectives of the Plan.
D. Plan objectives were developed through the scoping process described above,
including two studies which provided the basis for the selection of the alternatives,
the Petaluma General Plan 2025 Existing Conditions, Opportunities and Challenges
Report (the "ECOC") (October 2002); and the Petaluma General Plan Land Use &
Mobility Alternatives Report (the "LUMA") (February 2004). The LUMA built on
analysis of environmental constraints and resources done early in the Plan process
and responded to community concerns regarding traffic circulation, water resources
and the economic health of the city. The LUMA identified alternatives which
represented the initial determination of the community and the City Council, and
was the subject of six Planning Commission workshops and two community
workshops. The scoping workshops, meetings and discussions recognized that
significantly reducing anticipated buildout value and/or down-zoning would .not
serve the identified objectives for the Plan and for the community as a whole through
2025 because some level of reasonable growth is needed to sustain economic health,
to continue to provide a range of housing opportunities and community amenities and
to partially fund improved public facilities. Ultimately, Plan objectives formed in the
scoping process and used to select alternatives for EIR analysis were distilled into 14
of the 15 Guiding Principles, set out at Section i.3 of the Plan. The 15th Guiding
Principle was added after preparation of the Revised Draft EIR - GHG as part of the
city's response to evolving regulatory and scientific issues surrounding global climate
change and greenhouse gas emissions.
The Plan objectives as defined in the Plan's Guiding Principles are:
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 60
1. Maintain aclose-knit, neighborly and family-friendly city.
2. Preserve and enhance Petaluma's historic character.
3. Preserve and enhance Petaluma's natural environment and distinct setting in
the region - a community with a discrete edge surrounded by open space.
4. Enhance the Petaluma River Corridor while providing recreational and
entertainment opportunities, including through active implementation of the
Petaluma River Access and Enhancement Plan.
5. Stimulate and increase public access and use of pathways as alternative
transportation routes by providing a safe, efficient and interconnected trail
system.
6. Provide for a range of attractive and viable transportation alternatives, such as
bicycle, pedestrian, rail and transit.
7. Enhance Downtown by preserving its historic character, increasing
accessibility and residential opportunities and ensuring a broad range of
businesses and activities.
8. Foster and promote economic diversity and opportunities.
9. Expand retail opportunities to meet residents' needs and promote the city's
fiscal health, while ensuring that new development is in keeping with
Petaluma's character.
10. Continue efforts to achieve ajobs/housing balance, emphasizing opportunities
for residents to work locally.
11. Foster a sustainable community in which today's needs do not compromise the
ability of the community to meet its future needs. Enhance the built
environment, encourage innovation in planning and design and minimize
environmental impacts through implementation of green building standards.
12. Ensure infrastructure is strengthened and maintained.
13. Integrate and connect the east and west sides of town.
14. Encourage cultural, ethnic and social diversity.
15. Recognize the role Petaluma holds within the region and beyond (global
climate change).
E. The City Council adopts the EIR and LUMA conclusions and analysis regarding
alternatives eliminated from further consideration during the early community input
and scoping process and finds that each alternative dismissed from further analysis
was infeasible because it failed to meet Plan objectives as defined in the Plan's
Guiding Principles.
F. The EIR considered but rejected an initially identified alternative that would have
provided more jobs and housing development than the Plan, Alternative C in the
LUMA. LUMA Alternative C focused on intensifying neighborhood centers
strategically located throughout the city. The city council finds that this alternative
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 61
would not have reduced impacts from the Plan, would have had potential to create
greater impacts regarding transportation and circulation, air quality and noise, and
conflicted with Guiding Principle #3 because Alternative. C included proposed
expansion outside the UGB, and that Alternative C was therefore appropriately
excluded .from detailed study in the EIR.
G. The EIR evaluated three alternatives. Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative;
Alternative 2, Arterial Infill Corridor Development; and Alternative 3, River Corridor
Development Focus. When the CEQA project is a general plan, the No Project
Alternative means proceeding under the existing general plan. CEQA Guidelines,
§15126.6(e)(3)(A). The EIR analysis, incorporated herein, examined the feasibility of
each alternative, the extent to which it met Plan objectives, and the environmental
impacts of each alternative.
1. Alternative 1, the No Project Alternative required by CEQA, would permit
development under the policies and programs of the 1987-2005 General
Plan, as revised since its adoption, including the 2003 Central Petaluma
Specific Plan ("CPSP").
a. Finding. The No Project Alternative is rejected because it would not
reduce any significant unavoidable impact of the Plan; it would
have more severe impacts on visual resources, traffic, noise, air
quality impacts and water resources compared to the Plan; and it
would fail to meet project objectives as defined in Guiding
Principles 5, 6, 9, 11, 12, and 15 and the narrative supporting said
principles.
b. Explanation. Although the No Project Alternative nominally would
allow less population growth than the Plan, significant population
from development of residential projects. within the CPSP area
coupled with several significant site-specific land use changes to the
1987 General Plan (including Southgate, Park Square, Park Central,
Quarry Heights and Lindberg Circle), could easily increase buildout
population from the No Project Alternative to amounts greater than
those in the General Plan 2025. This potential larger population
increase would cause corresponding increases in the incremental
effects that are tied to population growth, such as traffic, need for
public utility and public safety services, and. impacts on
infrastructure. Proceeding under the No Project Alternative would
not commit the city to meeting its future water needs through 2025
from recycled water and increased water conservation. It would be
more wasteful of permanently consumed natural resources, and
would not adopt the environmentally beneficial GHG reduction
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 62
policies contained in the Plan, resulting in more severe air quality
impacts than the Plan. It would not apply new Plan policies which
intensify and expand upon the limited smart growth policies
contained in the Central Petaluma Specific Plan area to provide
mixed-use development and infill in the central area of the city..
The No Project Alternative would not implement new Plan policies
to prioritize multi-modal transportation improvements and preserve
and enhance the river corridor while strengthening flood
protection and prevention. Compared to the Plan, the No Project
Alternative provides for development closer to the River, and
allocates less land to parks and open space. The No Project
Alternative also envisions 3.3 million more square feet of non-
residential development, 1,000 more daily vehicle trips and slightly
more employees as compared to the General Plan 2025.
2. Alternative 2, Arterial Infill Corridor Development Focus, would intensify
use along the arterial corridors leading to Downtown and Central
Petaluma, including infilling or re-using vacant and under-utilized parcels.
It would have potentially more severe visual resource and open space
impacts, incrementally more severe impacts on traffic by significantly
increasing dependency on the automobile, noise, public services, public
utilities, air quality, compared to the Plan, would not maintain the desired
park standard and would not reduce any significant unavoidable impact of
the Plan.
a. Finding. Alternative 2 is rejected because it would not reduce any
significant unavoidable .impact of the Plan and would -have more
severe impacts on visual resources, traffic, noise, and air quality
impacts compared to the Plan; it would fail to meet the Plan.
parkland standard and would fall well below the existing parkland
ratio; and it would fail to meet project objectives as defined in
Guiding Principles 1, 5, 6, 9, 11, and 15, and the narrative
supporting said Principles.
b. Explanation. Alternative 2 would result in higher population
growth, more non-residential development and more total jobs than
the Plan. The significant and unavoidable impacts from traffic,
noise, air quality and GHG emissions would therefore be
incrementally more severe than with the Plan. Alternative 2
extended urban densities and intensities along the major arterials,
including Petaluma Boulevard North, outward from the central
areas of the city. Alternative 2 would fail to meet the .Plan parkland
standard and would fall well below the city's existing park ratio.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 63
Alternative 2 does not contain the additional hillside/ridgeline
policies contained in the Plan and could therefore decrease the
amount of open space and result in obstruction of views of hillsides
and ridgelines surrounding the city. Certain beneficial components
of Alternative 2 were incorporated into the Plan, such as pedestrian
and bicycles improvements along major corridors to increase the
use of alternative means of transportation.
3. Alternative 3, River Corridor Development Focus focused on the provision
of new housing opportunities connected to the Petaluma River corridor.
Alternative 3 would not lessen any significant unavoidable impact of the
Plan and would have more severe impacts on visual resources, traffic,
noise, and air quality impacts compared to the Plan; it would fail to meet
the Plan parkland standard; and it would fall well below the existing
parkland ratio.
a. Finding. Alternative 3 is rejected because it would not lessen any
significant unavoidable impact of the Plan and would have more
severe impacts on visual resources, traffic, noise, and air quality
impacts compared to the Plan. Alternative 3 will not allow a
reasonable, but lower, growth rate, both residential and non-
residential, than the existing 1987-2005 Plan, includes higher
population numbers than the City Council desired, and will not
achieve the Plan's objectives of preserving. the River corridor
(Guiding Principle #4). It proposes approximately 89 acres of new
parkland which would fail to meet the existing and General Plan
2025 Plan parkland standard of 5.0/1,000 population.
b. Explanation. Alternative 3, the River Corridor Development Focus,
would provide more housing units and higher total population than
the Plan or Alternatives 1 or 2. It would focus on providing new
housing opportunities connected to the Petaluma River, with new
medium and high density residential neighborhood clusters along
the river north of West Payran Street and some medium density
pockets along Petaluma Boulevard North. It would have slightly
less non-residential development than Alternative 1 and 2, but
slightly more than the Plan. It would have fewer total jobs than the
Plan or Alternative 2, but more than Alternative 1. It has the most
equal jobs housing ratio compared to the Plan and Alternatives 1
and 2. It would add 30,000 more daily vehicle trips than the Plan,
compared to 1,000 for the No Project Alternative and 34,000 .for
Alternative 2. Because it allows about 5% more development than
the Plan, Alternative 3 would not avoid or reduce to insignificance
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 64
any of the significant unavoidable impacts of the Plan, and it would
have incrementally more severe impacts on visual resources, traffic,
noise, and air quality impacts compared to the Plan. It proposes
approximately 89 acres of new parkland. which would fail to meet
the existing and General Plan 2025 parkland standard of 5.0/1,000
population.
VIII. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATONS.
A. CEQA requires a public agency to balance, as applicable, the. economic, legal,
social, technological, or other benefits of a project against its significant
unavoidable impacts when determining whether to approve a project. The
lead agency may deem significant and unavoidable adverse environmental
effects "acceptable" if the specific legal, social, technological, or other benefits
of a project outweigh the unavoidable adverse effects. Public Resources Code
section 21081; CEQA Guidelines section 15093.
B. As set forth in the preceding sections of these Findings, the vast majority of
potentially significant impacts of the Plan will be reduced to less-than-
significant levels by the Plan Policies which form the mitigation measures
recommended in these Findings. However, a small number of impacts cannot
be reduced to a level of insignificance even with the incorporation of all
mitigation in Plan Policies, and there are no feasible alternatives to the Plan
which would mitigate or avoid these significant environmental impacts and
still achieve Plan objectives. The City Council nonetheless chooses to accept
these impacts because, in its view, the economic, .social and other benefits that
the Plan will produce ("overriding considerations") will outweigh the
unavoidable. adverse effects.
C. This Statement of Overriding Considerations applies to those impacts which
cannot be reduced to a level of insignificance by the application of all
identified feasible mitigation measures and Plan Policies and Programs. Those
impacts are considered significant and unavoidable even if their impacts have
been substantially lessened. As also stated in Section III of these Findings, the
significant impacts of the Plan that cannot be mitigated to levels of
insignificance include deteriorated levels of service at six intersections within
the City (Transportation Impact 3.2-1); increased noise from traffic
(Transportation Impact 3.9-1); the cumulative noise impact of possible future
rail and trolley service combined with increased noise from traffic
(Cumulative Impact, Draft EIR, p. 4-5); an air quality impact, resulting from
buildout population numbers that conflict with the Bay Area 2005 Ozone
Strategy (Impact 3.10-1); and a possible air quality impact resulting from the
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 65
city's inability to determine whether or not implementation of the Plan will
create a cumulatively considerable incremental contribution to adverse global
climate change. As stated in Section V of these Findings, there are also certain
irreversible environmental changes from development pursuant to the Plan.
As stated in Section V of these Findings, all potential growth-inducing impacts
of the Plan have been studied in the EIR. However, to the extent that the Plan
permits limited and controlled growth, the Council finds that any impact from
the amount of growth permitted by the Plan is part of the Council's weighing
and balancing of the benefits of the Plan against its effects on the
environment.
D. The following statements relate benefits of Plan adoption to the Plan's 15
Guiding Principles and identify why, in the City's judgment, the benefits of
Plan adoption outweigh its significant unavoidable impacts, irreversible
changes and any adverse impact from the growth permitted by the Plan. The
Council further finds that any one of these overriding considerations is
sufficient to render said impacts acceptable. The substantial evidence
supporting these overriding considerations can be found in these Findings, and
in the documents comprising the Record of Proceedings.
1. The Plan allows the City to plan for growth in an orderly manner to meet
future land needs based on projected population and job growth.
2. The Plan allows the City to continue to achieve an acceptable jobs/housing
balance by establishing a balanced mix of housing and
commercial/retail business uses (Guiding Principle #10).
3. The Plan provides for an appropriate level of economic development that
capitalizes on Petaluma's location, natural .assets and community character
to meet the needs of current residents, promote the city's fiscal health,
foster and promote economic growth and opportunities through the Plan's
identification of sites for mixed use, office, industrial and retail
development, and ensuring that any new development will contribute to
Petaluma's character. (Guiding Principles #8 and 9) Continued economic
development is vital both to the continued provision of City services and
infrastructure and to implementing the many Plan policies which will
improve the quality of life for City residents and visitors.
4. The Plan promotes strong neighborhoods by establishing land uses and
balanced neighborhood development with frequently used activities and
facilities easily accessible to residents. Mixed uses, provision of new parks
and identification of sites for commercial centers in neighborhoods that
currently lack them are designated in the Plan (Guiding Principles #1 and
9).
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 66
5. The Plan preserves and enhances the city's historic character with the
inclusion of Historic Preservation Chapter 3, which contains a multitude of
strengthened and new policies and programs to identify and protect the
City's irreplaceable historic resources and achieve the cultural and
economic benefits that can result from protecting and revitalizing those
resources. (Guiding Principles #2 and #7).
6. The Plan supports and enhances the City's distinct setting in the region
and preserves the City's natural environment as one with a discrete edge,
surrounded by open space and closely associated with the Petaluma River
watershed and corridor (Guiding Principles #3 and 4) by identifying urban
limits, emphasizing infill growth and ensuring that- land outside the city's
Urban Growth Boundary remains primarily in agricultural, rural and open
spaces uses. The Plan also enhances the natural environment of the River
Corridor through incorporation of the Petaluma River Access and
Enhancement Plan, and provides increased public safety through new
floodway and flood plain regulations.
7. The Plan provides for a range of attractive and viable transportation
alternatives, such. as bicycle, pedestrian, rail, and transit and increases
public access and use of trails and pathways as part of these alternative
transportation routes (Guiding Principles #5 and 6).
8. The Plan requires the development of an interconnected mobility system
and multimodal transport to improve mobility and minimize automobile
dependency (Guiding Principle #6). This is strengthened by the
establishment of minimum densities, the promotion of infill development
and mixed uses in many neighborhoods.
9. The Plan identifies roadway improvements to better integrate and connect
the east and west sides of Petaluma and overcome the barriers presented by
the Petaluma River, the railroad tracks and Highway 101. Two major east-
west connections are identified and proposed, the Rainier
underpass/interchange and the Caulfield Lane "southern crossing" to
further this goal (Guiding Principle #13).
10. The Plan ensures infrastructure is strengthened and maintained by
assessing the City's public infrastructure and establishing standards for
capital facilities such as streets, parks., storm drainage and fire/safety to
ensure that growth does not exceed carrying capacity (Guiding Principle
#12). Transportation programs require the City to undertake safety
improvements in response to changing conditions in order to promote the
safe movement of people and goods through Petaluma's streets.
11. The Plan emphasizes meeting community needs created by new
development, including traffic, public facilities, parks and open space, with
fees which allocate a fair share of costs for new improvements to that
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 67
development, as part of fostering a sustainable community. (Guiding
Principles #11 and 12).
12. The Plan adds serious and far-reaching programs to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions from existing and new development, providing new
environmental benefits to the city and to regional, state and global
communities (Guiding Principle #15).
13. The Plan will enable development of additional affordable and senior
housing, as future development proceeds (Guiding Principle #14).
14. The Plan will encourage and reinforce the. City's existing ethnic, cultural
and social diversity by providing for a broad range of housing choices, from
large-lot homes to urban units, and apartments, as well as opportunities for
a variety of large and small scale businesses (Guiding Principle #14).
15. The Plan requires the implementation of hillside development and tree
preservation regulations, which will enhance the visual character of the
City and provide environmental benefits (Guiding Principles #3 and 15).
16. The Plan establishes a program to provide water supply and wastewater
treatment capacity sufficient to serve the population needs of buildout
under the Plan in an environmentally and fiscally responsible fashion
through water recycling and water conservation which lessens or
eliminates the routine use of additional groundwater or Sonoma County
Water Agency supply (Guiding Principles #3, 11, 12 and 15).
E. The City Council finds that the Plan has been carefully reviewed and that
policies have been incorporated into the Plan to reduce all environmental
effects and make the Plan self-mitigating to the full extent possible.
Nonetheless., the Plan may have certain environmental effects which cannot
be .avoided or substantially lessened.. The City Council has considered each
environmental effect which has not been mitigated to a less than significant
level by the combination of General Plan Policies and mitigation measures, all
as described in the EI.R. The City Council has considered the fiscal, economic,
social, environmental, and orderly land use planning benefits of the Plan.
Pursuant to Public Resources Code section 2.1081 and CEQA Guidelines
section 15093, the City Council has balanced the fiscal, economic, social,
environmental, and land use benefits of the Plan against its unavoidable and
unmitigated adverse environmental impacts and, based upon substantial
evidence in the record, has determined that the benefits of the Plan outweigh
the adverse environmental effects, and that the remaining significant and
unavoidable impacts of the Plan are acceptable in light of the, Plan's multiple
benefits, any one of which is sufficient to constitute grounds for this statement
of overriding considerations.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 68
F. With respect to any environmental effects that cannot be avoided or
substantially lessened, the Council finds that the specific fiscal, economic,
legal, social, technological and other considerations discussed above make
infeasible any mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR which
were not imposed as part of Plan programs, policies and/or mitigation
measures.
Resolution No. 2008-084 N.C.S. Page 69